MR. ROBBINS: It has probative value, Your Honor, and at the same time rebuts and impeaches the testimony of the witness. He said that the suggestions didn't come from him, and I think these documents prove that they did come from him.
THE PRESIDENT: If you are impeaching the witness you will have to confront him with the impeaching evidence. You will have to show the document to him and ask him if his testimony is true or whether the document is true, if it is for impeachment. If it is for refreshing his recollection, you will first have to have him say he doesn't remember. But you are simply offering then now, really as part of your main case.
MR. ROBBINS: Very well. I will submit these documents to the defendant. The first one he has already seen. That is 2753, Exhibit 537.
THE PRESIDENT: I might suggest, Mr. Robbins, that these could be offered by way of rebuttal when you get to the end of the defense, but if you are going to use then now, they will have to be shown to the witness and used for impeachment purposes.
MR. ROBBINS: I would prefer, for the porpose of saving time, not to use then, these last documents, not to use then at the present time, but give than exhibit numbers for identification and offer then later in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. It will be understood that these documents are not admitted in evidence nor offered in evidence at this time. They are merely identified by giving then an exhibit number.
MR. ROBBINS: There is only one more and that is N02749, which I will mark for identification as Exhibit 342.
THE PRESIDENT: 542.
MR. ROBBINS: 542. I am sorry I think I said --I believe I said 340, which should have been 540, and 541 and 542.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, after October 1943, in face, in December 1943 you gave extensive orders which were distributed to all higher SS and police leaders and all economic officials under the WVHA and so-called SS economic experts and to Amtsgruppe B and Amtsgruppe D, prescribing the utilization of the loot.
You recall that document, do you not? It is in Book 18. Would you look at that? It is on Page 182 of the German Book, 175 of the English document book,
A. What document book?
Q. Document Book 18. It is the last document in Nook 18. That is your order, is it not?
A. Yes, I signed it.
Q. And after October 1943 you turned over, or rather Globocnik turned over to you property from the Action Reinhard which was valued at more than one hundred million Reichmarks, did he not? That was in 1944. A report which reached you in January 1944 shows that the value of 179 million Reichmarks was turned over to you. You recall that?
A. Yes, well, the valuables were not turned over to the WVHA in December or January 1943 or 1944.
Q. You explained that they went on to the Reich when you received them.
A. No, they were given to the Reichsbank directly.
Q. But it went through you.
A. Well, I did not see it, and it was'nt delivered at our place. On the contrary, I gave Melmer, my deputy, the order that none of those things were to come into the WBHA, but immediately upon their arrival in Berlin they should be transferred to the Reichsbank and forwarded to then immediately. That was my strict order to Melmer, and as far as I know he complied with these orders, because in the WVHA we had no places whatsoever in order to keep much valuables.
Q. Would you turn to Document Book 18, Page 116 of the German document book, to Document NO 060, which is Exhibit 474. It says there that this is a report from Globocnik and it stated that their are turning in property-
THE INTERPRETER: Excuse me, Mr. Robbins. What is the page number again in German?
MR. ROBBING: 116.
THE INTERPRETER: This page is missing.
MR. ROBBINS: Well, this document is not in evidence.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. It reports that property valued at one hundred million Reich-marks was turned in from the Reinhard operation and it states valuables from the Reinhard operation have been handed in at the SS WBHA in Berlin for transmission to the Reichsbank. They went through the WVHA, didn't they? The WVHA handled these valuables?
A. No, not at all.
THE PRESIDENT: We have been over this and the witness has said that they were routed through the WBHA to the Reichsbank.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins.)
Would you turn to the Document Book 20, to Exhibit 159, or rather to Exhibit 504? It is on Page 159 of the German book. This is a report by you, is it not, to Himmler on the measures taken for the demolition of the Warsaw Ghetto? This is in October 1943.
A. Yes.
Q. This was after you heard Himmler speak in Posen?
A/ Yes.
Q. And you encountered a report by Kammler on the destruction of the Ghetto?
A. Yes.
Q. This reported that Kammler has demolished about one-third of all of the buildings in the Ghetto on that date and that he is proceeding with the work, that 3,700,000 cubic meaters of wall space has been demolished and that they are preceding at the rate of 1,700,000 cubic meters of wall space a month. That was carried out under you, wasn't it?
A. Yes. That is the report of Kammler to which I made no additions or statements myself, and this refers to Himmler's order that the ruins of the Ghetto should be removed, due to military reasons, because they could be used as hiding places for the people of the resistance movement, and this proved to be a fact a year later, but the destruction of these ruins was carried out by the central office in Warsaw.
Q. Will you turn to the next document in the book, which is on Page 164 of your book. This is Exhibit 508, Document N02517. This is another report on the demolition.
A. Yes.
Q. And this is February, 1944?
A. The second report.
Q. And the next document, 20 April 1944, Exhibit 509, this is another report?
A. Yes.
Q. It gives the details on the blowing up of the buildings in Warsaw, and the next document, which is Exhibit 510, this is another report?
A. Yes, but the Ghetto at that time was a city of ruins after the action "Strohm."
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. We are getting German over this second channel.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness the only question I asked you is, is this your report? It it your report?
A. Yes, those are the reports which Kammler wrote up himself and which, through me, went to the Reichsfuehrer.
Q. You read the reports, didn't you?
A. Well, if I read them at the time I hardly believe. I doubt it. Mabe I, just glanced through it in a hurry. I saw that it was a report about the destruction of the ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto, that is all, but I don't believe that I read the whole thing in detail.
I had such a pile of papers over there that I did not have the time to glance through that. I didn't have to read it.
Q. Kammler talked to you about this, didn't he?
A. There was not much to talk about. I never did discuss the matter with Kammler in all the details.
Q. You never talked to Kammler about these reports?
A. The letter the way it is introduced here, has been worked on by Amtsgruppe C, and maby it was the same dossier.
Q. I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you ever talked to Kammler about this report.
A. About this report, no. I don't believe so, because if i wanted to discuss every letter with the expert 24 hours a day would not have been sufficient. Whatever was in the signature file, well, I sinply signed it. That was not a reason why I should call the experts to my table every time.
Q. Did you sign everything that was in your signature file without ever reading anything?
A. Well, I couldn't read everything. It depended on the subject of the report or on the contents of the report. One could tell immediately what it was after having worked in an office for thirty years. It can be understood that I was not a child; I could not sit there like a little boy and read until twelve o'clock at night. I signed then during the day and not at ten or ten twenty.
Q. You state in each on of these letters that this is a report on the work done up to date on the demolition of the Ghetto at Warsaw. You knew what the report concerned, didn't you?
A. Of course it can be seen very clearly what it is all about in this document.
Q. This was after October 1943 when Himmler said that--
A Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: Is this a convenient time to recess?
THE PRESIDENT: We will be in recess until Monday at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 2 June 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany on 2 June 1947, 0930, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room, find your seats, please.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2.
Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal There will be order in the court.
OSWALD POHL * Resumed.
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, I direct your attention again to the subject matter of Action Reinhart. You told us that you had very little to do in a supervisory capacity with this action and that the loot and valuables that were confiscated in the action went through your office merely as a conduit or a channel. I would like to show you a document which is an order of yours dated 4th of July, 1944, and see if we cannot get more details as to the authority which you exercised over this matter. These are your instructions, are they not?
A. Yes.
Q. I would like to read a part of it, on the letterhead of the Chief of the WVHA.
"SUBJECT: Administration of Jewish Property Values.
"REFERENCE: Order by the Chief of the WVHA.
"To: All Main Office Chiefs.
All Higher SS and Police Leaders All SS economists-- administrative leaders of the Higher SS and Police Leaders.
"Amtsgruppe D, Oraienburg Amtsgruppe B WVHA , Amt.
A IV WVHA, Amt A-1 "1. To eliminate all doubts, I herewith announce the offices (as listed) below which alone are competent for the administration of all movable and immovable Jewish property:
1. In the Reich area; the Oberfinanzpraesidentent 2. In the occupied territories; The offices of the Reich Commissioners, i. e., the commanders of the Wehrmacht.
3. In the General Government: The Government of the General Government.
4. In Bohemia and Moravia: The German Minister of State for Bohemia and Moravia.
"2. As far as SS offices have come into possession of Jewish property, they have to turn it over to the above mentioned offices. Paragraph 4 of this order applies to valuables which accrue in concentration camps. In special cases a report is to be made to the Chief of the SS-WVHA. AS a matter of principle it has to be kept in mind that the entire Jewish property is to be incorporated into the Reich property.
"3. Goods and valuables which accrue in collecting camps of the SD from deceased persons and which cannot be delivered to the authorities designated above for reasons of secrecy are to be delivered to the RSHA. Same delivers them to the Reich Main Treasury Department Booty after screening and checking by the Criminology Institute, Chemical Department.
"4. The procedure as regulated in Paragraph 4 of the ordinance of 9-12-43 applies now only to goods and valuables which accrue in offices of the Waffen SS (concentration camps).
"5. The receipts resulting from the realization of these items are to be entered by the respective finance offices of the Waffen SS under Chapter 21-E, Income, insofar as they are not directly delivered to the Reich Main Treasury.
"6. For reasons of simplification of administration the transfer of amounts of money which cannot be put into circulation as regulated in paragraph 3 of the ordinance of 9-12-43 is abolished. These receipts are to be transferred to the income of the Reich under Chapter 21-E, stating at the same time the origin and enclosing the supporting papers. As far as the enclosed papers are secret, reference to the secret files is to be made on the vouchers. (Signed) Pohl."
Q. You state that these are your instructions?
A. Yes, these are my instructions.
Q. These were instructions given to all Main Office chiefs, were they? to the chiefs of the RSHA?
A. To all Main Office chiefs as the distribution list shows.
Q. It is true, isn't it, that as shown from this document you exercised very considerable supervisory jurisdiction over the carrying out of this action?
A. No, this decree has actually nothing to do with the Reinhardt Action as such. Rather, it was caused by it, but I don't quite know that anymore today, it represents merely a treasury regulation; that is to say, how the various SS agencies should act if Jewish property had accumulated in their treasury. That is why it was addressed to all agencies.
Who was responsible for the administration I told each of these agencies under paragraph 1 for informative purposes. The reason for this decree therefore, is purely a simplification with all agencies which somehow were connected with Jewish property inside and outside the Reich territory because they didn't know what to do with it. This decree, as far as I can judge, was based on the experiences, shall we say, which we had gathered with the evaluation connected with the Reinhardt Action, and has nothing to do with the action itself.
Q. Then it has something to do with the administration of Jewish property values, which values were confiscated in the course of the action, does it not?
A. This decree doesn't say anything about that. It is simply to enlighten all SS-agencies about the general administration of confiscated Jewish property in general because under paragraph 1 I particularly pointed out who was competent for the administration of this property; and the WVHA doesn't come into that. Four other agencies are named. The whole decree represents an instruction for informative purposes of the administrative agencies within the SS.
Q. Will you look at the subject of the letter, Administration of Jewish Property Values. That Jewish property is that referring to? That's confiscated Jewish property, isn't it?
A. All Jewish property which one way or another reached the treasury and the administrative agencies of SS departments. That is what is being referred to here.
Q. What does the second sentence in paragraph 2 mean, "In special cases a report is to be made to the Chief of the WVHA"?
A. That means in cases which are not covered by these instructions. If certain difficulties should arise inspite of this decree, then such cases were to be reported to me because the decree was not sufficiently exhaustive. Cases might have arisen, for instance, where the various SS agencies did not quite know what to do; and in such special cases in order to clarify this matter, I was to be consulted.
Q. What would you do when you were consulted?
A. Well, then I would have given the relevant instructions. Of course, today I don't recall whether such special cases ever arose and reached me.
Q. Can you tell us why these instructions were addressed to Amt A-1 and Amt A-d?
A. Amt A-1--well, Amt A-1, was part of the WVHA which dealt with the central regulations of this matter; and Amt A-4 was the agency which had a certain amount of experience because of the auditing in Lublin which was carried out in July 1943; and both agencies took notice of this decree. All other agencies did.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): Just one question. Witness, right under the title on the left-hand side of the page at the top where it says, "The Chief of SS Economic and Administrative Main Office", right under that is this: "A II/3. Reinh." Doesn't that mean Action Reinhardt?
A. That means Reinhardt, yes.
THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE PHILLIPS): That's all.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. As I understand your explanation of this document, you say that you had nothing to do with formulating the Reich treasury regulations? Is that correct?
A. The Reich treasury regulations?
Q Which you are referring to in the documents?
A It was not up to me to issue Reich Treasury regulations. The Reich Treasury regulations came from the Reich Ministry of Finance.
Q You simply are instructions to your subordinate, and also to the other chiefs of the other Main Offices as to how these regulations were to be applied is that correct?
A Yes.
JUDGE PHILLIPS. Are you going to give us an exhibit number, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. No. 3161 I will number as Prosecution Exhibit No. 343 for identification.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: 543.
MR. ROBBINS 543 for identification.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q And in the course of your direct examination the Presiding Judge asked you this question in reference to this general subject matter the extermination of the Jews: "Were the gas chambers there in Ausschwitz concentration camp there operating when you were in charge." This is the transcript at page 1366, and you gave this answer: "I can not say that because I have visited Auschwitz only once in 1944, and perhaps twice in 1933. At that time I did not see that the Jews were being exterminated. I, therefore, do not know how long this program was under way." That testimony is not correct, is it?
A Well, it is correct as I gave it at the time, because I never saw the death chamber in operation and at the time I did not know when the whole extermination program started and when it stepped.
Q You knew when you visited Auschwitz in the Summer of 1944 that the exterminations were going on then, did you not?
A When I received the final reports from Globocnik in January 1944, I assumed that the extermination program was finished.
Q I would like to show you affidavit of yours which I believe will aid your memory. This is -
THE PRESIDENT: Before you finish with this exhibit, I have a question or two, Mr. Robbins.
MR. ROBBINS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I am talking about Exhibit No. 543, the last paper that was handed to you, witness.
THE WITNESS: May I have it back.
THE PRESIDENT: dill you look at paragraph two, the last sentence: "As a matter of principle it has to be kept in mind the entire Jewish property is to be incorporated into the Reich property." When you wrote this letter you knew that the program of confiscation of all Jewish property was under way, did you not?
THE WITNESS: It was not known to me, Mr. President, that Jewish property was to be confiscated, as a matter of principle. That was not know to me. I only thought of two cases were such property was transferred to the treasury of SS-Agencies.
Q Weel, I am reading your own words. This is what you said: "The entire Jewish property is to be incorporated into the Reich property. As a matter of principle, it is to be kept in mind."?
A Yes, insofar as it was already in the hands of the SS Agencies. A difference must be made, not the entire Jewish property which was outside the sphere of influence of the SS-Agencies, but I only kept in mind the property which was already in the hands of the SS Agencies, and that property as a matter of principle was to be transferred to the Reich. I was not in a position to confiscate Jewish property myself, I was unable to do that.
Q If I understand your explanation, that when you said "Entire Jewish property" you mean the entire Jewish property that had already been seized by the SS?
A It had not been seized by the SS.
Q It had been seized and delivered to the SS for the Reich?
A Yes, that is quite right, that is what I mean.
Q You never imagined that this meant all the Jewish property in the occupied territories in the General Governments and in the Protectorate?
A I don't understand the question Mr. President.
Q You did not mean when you said "Entire Jewish property" all the property owned by Jews in the occupied territories, in the General Government, and in the Protectorate?
A No, no, of course, I did not mean that.
Q All right, if that were so, why was there any need for secrecy. Read Paragraph 3. You talk about property that has been collected "Which can not be delivered to the authorities designated above for reasons of secrecy." What does that mean?
A I am afraid I don't know any more, in what connection this was.
Q Didn't you know what you meant when you read that?
A Weel, I can not recall it now, in what connection I put down those words. I don't understand it any more.
A Well, all these matters, for instance, were always regarded as a secret matter, and I cannot imagine that there was any special reasons for secrecy.
Q What you are speaking about is some particular special goods and valuables, which could not be delivered to authorities for reasons for secrecy.
Q What you are speaking about is some particular special goods and valuables, which could not be delivered to authorities for reasons of secrecy. What kind of goods and valuables did you mean?
A. I am afraid I don't know that any more, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Just a moment, Mr. Robbins. Well, will the interpreters give the court the literal translation of the words used in paragraph 3 "Reich Hauptkasse"?
THE INTERPRETER: I believe it would be Reich Main Treasury, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Reich Main Treasury?
THE INTERPRETER: I believe so, yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is translated in the document as "Department booty".
THE INTERPRETER: I believe, Your Honor, "Department booty", is really the "Haupt department" of the Reich Main Treasury.
THE PRESIDENT: What words do you translate as "Department booty"?
THE INTERPRETER: I believe the German would be "Beutestelle". It means Department for loot and booty.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Do you have the original German document there?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, sir, we have that, the word used in the document.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. The affidavit that I have just handed you, witness, NO-2618, I shall mark that as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 544 for identification. This is your affidavit, is it not?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. I would like to read paragraph 3 of the affidavit: "During my visit to Auschwitz in the Summer of 1944, on the way to the agricultural working sites, I saw that a transport train which had apparently just arrived, was being unloaded. BEER, the camp commandant, an Obersturmbannfuehrer, who was accompanying me, declared that it consisted of Hungarian Jews. As I drove on I noticed that SS members were leading the prisoners forward in the direction of the train, where the extermination installations were, and apparently the prisoners were separated to all appearances, according to whether they were able or unable to work. I did not see any troops march from the unloading point to the extermination installations. In my estimation the transport numbered about 500 men. I did not stop at the place and did not get out of the car, but was only able to make these observations while driving."
You knew when you saw this operation, did you not, that these Jews were being exterminated or executed?
A. I did not know that, nor did I assume that at the time because I believed that they were new arrivals about to take part in labor allocation, because, personally, at that time I had Himmler's permission to employ also female Jewesses, from Hungary, and so furnish them for the "O.T.". Had I known they were going to be exterminated, that application to Himmler would have had no sense.
Q. "When you saw these Jews being separated, and those who could work being put in one line, and the others who could not work being headed towards the extermination installation, what did you think why they were driving the latter group towards the extermination installation for? What did you think what was being done with those Jews who were unable to work?
A. I did not see them march in that direction.
A. I did not see it--that they marchee in that direction.
Q. You say in your affidavit, "As I prove on I noticed that SS members were leading the prisoners forward in the direction of the train where the extermination installations were."
A. Yes, but then I saw I did not see any troops march from the unloading point to the extermination installation. While I drove past, all I saw was that the transport gathered near the train, but where it marched to I did not see because I only saw this from my car as I drove on.
Q. I would like to read a short excerpt from one of your interrogations of the 3rd of June 1946. The interrogation was made by Colonel Nrookhardt, who was one of Mr. Justice Jackson's interrogators, and you were asked this question by Colonel Brookhardt:
"A little earlier in 1944, particularly in the summer months, there was on extermination of a large number of Hungarian Jews; you recall that, do you not? " And you gave this answer:
"Yes, I know that exactly. I happened to be at Amschwitz at that time, and when I went through that territory around there I saw a convoy arriving--that is, a train convoy--in which these people were debarked from those trains. Upon my questioning him as to what that particular convoy was, Beer, who was accompanying me at that time, told me about that particular action.
Q. Describe it to us. What took place?
A. I saw the train emptying itself. I saw how these people were led down in a certain direction, in the direction of these installations. By 'installations' I mean liquidation installations, crematoria, and so forth. However, I did not follow that up.
Q. How many were there in each transport?
A. The train I saw was a normal train. I mean it was a freight train with freight cars. By just looking at that crowd of people, I would estimate that there could have been about 500. However, there might also have been 800; I am not sure.
I would say approximately between those figures.
Q. Do you know that the average transport carried about 2,000 or more? You know that, do you not?
A. That I don't know. That is the only transport I have ever seen.
Q. Out of that transport, how many were selected for labor and how many were selected for extermination?
A. That I don't know."
You say here in this interrogation that you did know that; You knew exactly that a large number of Hungarian Jews were exterminated in the summer months of 1944.
A. That knowledge I did not have in the summer of 1944, nor do I know to this day whether and to what extent these Hungarian Jews were exterminated. My interrogation, or my several interrogations in the summer of last year shortly after my transfer to Nurnberg, took place under extraordinary conditions, and the picture which I gave during my interrogations was a picture which had framed in my memory without my being able to base myself on knowledge gathered at the time. What I say in my last affidavit, for instance, is correct, as I gave it here.
Q. Well, you say in your last affidavit that you saw then leading the prisoners toward the extermination installations, but going back to your interrogation which was made almost exactly a year ago, a year ago tomorrow, is it your contention that on that day you could remember-
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for defendant Oswald Pohl): (Interposing) The Prosecution maintains that the affidavit, No-2618 shows that the defendant had admitted that he had seen how inmates had marched away toward the extermination installations. That conclusion is a contrerdiction of the contents of the affidavit, because it says literally-and I quote: "I did not see any troops march from the unloading point to the extermination installation."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the witness himself has pointed out that claimed distinction in the affidavit.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Is it your contention, witness, that a year ago today you remembered that you knew about the extermination of Jews but today you remember that you did not know? Is that the situation?
A. No, a year ago I knew more than I did in the summer of 1944. In the summer of 1944 I did not know that the Jews transported to Auschwitz were to be exterminated. I assumed at the time that they were to be incorporated into the labor program, which was my personal endeavor. This becomes clear from the document where I apply to Himmler/
Q. I'll just ask you one more question about this. I submit to you that it is patent--it is obvious on the fact, that either your testimony here today is false or your testimony which you gave under oath a year ago is false. All I am asking you is which is true and which is untrue, and I want to read you again just one sentence from your answer. You were asked the question:
"A little earlier in 1944, particularly in the summer months, there was an extermination of a large number of Hungarian Jews; You recall that, don't you?
Q. "Yes, I know that exactly. I happened to be at Auschwitz at that time."
In these statements of June and July 1946-
Q. I did not ask you about that. I just asked you which is false. One of them has to be. They are directly contradictory.
A. In june 1944 I did not know that Hungarian Jews had been exterminated or were to be exterminated in Auschwitz.
Q. And when you said you did, that was false testimony under oath? Is that correct?
A. Well, I do not know when I gained that knowledge after 1944. When I was interrogated under oath in June and July 1946, in certain cases, I knew more than at the time when the incidents occurred.
In June and July 1946 I made several statements in about 50 interrogations and I am unable today to maintain these statements, because they were given when I was in a mental state which I have left behind me since, both physically and mentally speaking.
Q. That mental state caused you to remember a good many facts then that you can not remember today; is that right?
A. I recall things much more clearly today than I did at the time a year ago. On the contrary, a year ago my memory was much less clear than it is today. How I have been in solitary confinement for a year and have studied all these documents, and, therefore, the picture in my memory is much clearer and much truer than it was a year ago, than it could be a year ago.
Q, I would like to turn now to another-
JUDGE MUSSMANO: Mr. Robbins, may I ask a question on this document? Have you given it an exhibit number?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes Your Honor, this is 544 for Identification. The affidavit?
JUDGE MUSSMANO: That's right.
BY JUDGE MUSSMANO:
Q. Before proceeding to the question on this affidavit--and it is merely one question--I want to follow up your last declaration with regard to a statement given a year ago. You say that your memory was less clear a year ago of events which were necessarily closer to you than they are today. Would your mental state cause you to remember things which did not happen or cause you to state things that you now say did not happen?
A. Well, these things were put to me--questions were put to me, and in the condition in which I found myself at the time I simply said Yes or No, without seeing these things any too clearly.
Q. Well, you see, it was not a question of your stating, "I do not remember," or It is not clear to me". You specifically and affirmatively declared that you precisely remembered.