BY DR. RAUSCHENBACH (Attorney for Frank and Hans Loerner):
Q. You made a statement just now that you yourself were never present at a visit by a member of the WVHA at Globocnik's and that, of course, is correct, isn't it? From what fact do you deduce your opinion which you gave us here? Is it correct that you base your opinion as in other cases of your statements from your knowledge of evidence available about concentration camps. That is to say, in the same manner as a prosecutor or a defense counsel on a trial forms an opinion from the evidence submitted?
A. Not in the same manner. As far as my special answer just now concerned, during such a visit, I assume, unless it was an isolated example or unless the topic was not of the same nature as the court described just now, I assume that the visits there were the the same thing. That is my opinion, after all evidence here or any other statements.
Q. So, it is equally possible that anybody else who goes into this--
THE PRESIDENT: He has answered your question and there is no use to pursue it further. He says that he tells you what he knows or what he heard and I don't think you are accomplishing anything by pursuing any further.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Mr. President, I have no other questions to the witness. I simply want to state where he gets his opinions from.
BY DR. BELZER: (Attorney for the Defendant Sommer):
Q. Witness, do you make any observations that the camp commandant of Buchenwald, provided, of course, that the camp commandant knew who was about to visit him made arrangements for hiding what was going on in torturing prisoners?
A. Yes. That happened on repeated occasions, particularly when strangers would call; police officers, for instance, but also in other cases, orders were given to remove certain instruments of torture, in particular, not to display them openly.
DR. BELZER: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination? This witness may be excused.
MR. ROBBINS: I ask that Josef Ackermann be called as a witness for the prosecution.
DR. SEIDL (Attorney for the Defendant Oswald Pohl): May it please the court, before the next witness is called in, I would appreciate if I had the opportunity to make a request which is concerned with the proceedings here, for the reason that the prosecution will finish its case in a few days and then the question will have to be cleared up whether and how long before we can adjourn this proceedings in order to enable the defense counsel to prepare their case. I would be grateful if you could tell me if I could make that request now, because the translation of the request, which I handed in in a letter, will always take a few days, and it might be possible that the court's ruling will be given at a later date and therefore it is possible that the defense counsel will have difficulty and the whole matter will merely take five minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: You want the prosecution to estimate when the case will be concluded?
DR. SEIDL: No, the position is this. The prosecution has told us that the presentation of their case will come to an end in a few days. It is not so important how soon this will occur, but in this connection, I wish to make application that after the prosecution has presented their case, the proceedings will be adjourned for two weeks in order to make it possible for the defense to have the extensive material investigated, to prepare their defense, and after their preparation to be able to make their opining statement and I would therefore suggest, Mr. President, that I would be allowed to make this application here and now. I am basing myself on five points so that Mr. McHaney can answer to my application immediately, if he should think it necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope some start has been made on the preparation of the defense and that you are not putting off preparing your defense until the prosecution's case is in.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the court, of course, of course, we have begun to prepare the work of the defense; on the other hand, the fact exists that preparation is rendered more difficult by the indictment itself. It has only been substantiated up to a point and now we have only seen from the documents of the prosecution what actual charges are being made against the various defendants. The prosecution are submitting twenty document books which amount in German to about 3,000 typewritten pages. Up to this time we have only a part of those document books at our disposal and, of course, it is necessary that the defendants themselves and their counsel should study this case and work on it, which is necessary for the reason that without previous knowledge of that case and without having worked on it for some time, no defense will be possible and here I should like to add also that in the case of the Defendant Pohl, the defense will consist of an interrogation and examination of the Defendant Pohl and I shall have to examine Defendant Pohl on a large number of documents on the witness stand. The preparation work was impossible before, because some of the document books have not been given us yet. Moreover, the difference between this trial and other trials is that the prosecution have confined themselves to offering the documents and making only a few remarks but in the IMT, for instance, and other courts, most of the documents were read into record, or, always at least considerable extracts were read into the record. This particular proceeding means saving time on the part of the proceeding, as such. Only the prosecution can put its case on as it wishes, but on the other hand, the consequence is the preparation of the defense is rendered more difficult by this and they need therefore more time to prepare their defense. Also, up to this moment, we have received the records only in a very limited extent. Up to two days ago, we had the transcription for only one day and more recently, we had the transcription for two or three days. We relied of course that here as in the other cases, we would have been given the transcription, immediately.
As a result of this we have desisted from taking down notes while witnesses were being examined. These are a few of the reasons which I wish to quote here in order to show the differences which face us in this case and which in my opinion make it necessary for an adjournment between the end of the prosecution's case and between the opining statement of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal, of course, anticipated that the defense would need some time after the close of the prosecution and before the opining of the defense. We are a little startled at your request for two weeks.
DR. SEIDL: If the Tribunal please, several colleagues made the suggestion to have three weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: That is even more -- three weeks.
DR. SEIDL: In my own case, I regarded it as sufficient to apply for two weeks, because I based myself on the fact that two weeks would be a minimum, and I would like to add here that the evidence submitted so far is very extensive and as far as the documents submitted are concerned, it will be necessary to discuss the documents with the defendants. I wish to refer to another point also on this case and I would be grateful for the court's support in this instance. A number of witnesses have been permitted to me by the court. So far I have not been able with one sole exception, which was a mistake made by the prison authorities, to talk to these witnesses, because the administration took the attitude that witnesses approved by the court can be seen by me only in the presence of a commissioner. A commissioner is available up to 4:30, in the evening, Now, because we sit here until 4:30 I will be quite unable to see these witnesses and talk to them.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is necessary, commissioners can be made available at any time. The court realizes that you can't interview witnesses while you are here in court and the commissioners who are appointed by the court will be made available after court or in the evening whenever it is possible to interview the witness, so don't let that concern you too much.
I wish to refer to another point also on this occasion and I would be grateful for the Court's support in this instance. A number of witnesses have been committed to me by the Court. So far I have not been able, with one single exception, which was a mistake made by the prison authorities, to talk to these witnesses because the administration took the attitude that witnesses approved by the Court can be seen by me only in the presence of a commissioner. A commissioner is available as a rule up to 4:30 in the evening. Now, because we sit here until 4:30, I will be quite unable to see these witnesses at all.
THE PRESIDENT: If it is necessary, the commissioners can be made available at any time, The Court realizes that you can't interview witnesses while you are here in court, and the commissioners who are appointed by the Court will be made available to you after court in the evening or whenever it is possible to interview the witnesses. So don't let that concern you too much.
DR. SEIDL: Perhaps I could suggest to the Court here that in those cases when the Court has approved a witness for the defense no commissioner should be called here at all and only in those cases will the commissioner be called when our position is to talk to the witness in an informative manner, and on the basis of that conversation base one's opinion of whether one wishes to apply for this witness at all.
THE PRESIDENT: We have tried to solve this problem of the commissioners and there are more exceptions to the proposed plan than there are instances in which it is followed. A rule has been formulated and a rule of Court has been published and it will be followed. There will be no exceptions to it. But we shall make the interviewing of witnesses as convenient and expeditious as possible. However, we shall adhere to the rule which requires the presence of the commissioner. Now, if you'll excuse me just a minute while I consult with my colleagues.
Mr. McHaney, may we hear from you on this question in the interval?
MR. MC HANEY: If the Tribunal please, it seems to the prosecution that two weeks is excessive. We don't wish to be too stringent in the matter but, of course, we wish to get through with the case as rapidly as possible and reasonably, both from our own point of view and that of the defense.
I think it should be pointed out, however, that the indictment was served, it seems to me, in January. A large number of the documents which have been used in this case or at least a substantial number were in arguments used before the IMT. All of the medical documents, with a few exceptions, were used before the Tribunal trying the medical case. After all, it is to be expected that these defendants have considered their careers in the WVHA in the light of the charges in the indictment and that they are informed as to the matters which are being brought into issue in this trial.
So I don't think it is necessary to have a long adjournment. Now, at the most I should think that, whether or not we finish by Friday, which we hope to do, the Tribunal might adjourn from Monday through Wednesday of next week, require opening statements to be made by the defense counsel on Thursday and Friday, and then begin the defense on Monday a week. After all, we have eighteen defendants in this dock and, if they can do nothing more, they can at least take the stand and testify. It is ridiculous to say that we have to adjourn two weeks so that eighteen defense counsel can prepare eighteen cases which don't go in simultaneously. Their cases won't be closed at any fixed time. They can continue to obtain affidavits and to search for witnesses after their defendant has testified and they can bring that material in later.
We have estimated a trial here of two to three months for the defense, so there is going to be considerable time, I think, for all of them. The first defendant may find it a little more difficult, but after his defendant has testified he then has seventeen more defendants to extend his time to get additional evidence. So I would suggest that the opening statements be made the last part of next week and the defense then start the following week.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court is not unmindful of the fact that counsel in this case have appeared in other cases and are familiar with the docu ments and with the whole background and setting here.
We are also impressed with the fact that while eighteen opening statements are being made, if that must happen, those who are not busy making an opening statement will have a considerable period of time to do something more worthwhile. I mean you don't all have to stand by and listen to each other make opening statements. That time can be available to you for inspection of the documents and reviewing the transcript. I think you are magnifying the demands which will be made upon your time somewhat. I will hear you, counsel.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution said, among other things, that the indictment was served on 13 January. As far as the defendants Frank and Hans Loerner are concerned, as early as January I made the application that the prosecution should be made to substantiate the indictment, and at that time I pointed out that the indictment alone does not enable defendants Frank and Hans Loerner to see what crimes they are charged with, apart from the general charge of conspiracy.
THE PRESIDENT: We are familiar with your application for a bill of particulars, and it is probably true that you could not really prepare your defense or start to until you began to get the documents, and you cannot fully prepare it until you get all the documents. We realize that. Put to terminate this, at the conclusion of the prosecution, the Tribunal will fix the time of the adjournment. We have your requests in mind.
Do you want to start tonight on this man?
MR. ROBBINS: I think we might save some time by starting now.
JOSEF ACKERMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Raise your 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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, your name is Josef Ackermann?
A. Josef Ackermann, yes.
Q. Where and when were you born?
A. I was born on 31 January 1896 in Munich.
Q. You are presently a German citizen?
A. Yes, I am a German citizen.
Q. You are a journalist by profession?
A. Yes.
Q. How long have you followed that profession?
A. I have been a journalist and editor for thirty years.
Q. You are a student of political economy and history?
A. Yes.
Q. When were you first arrested?
A. I was arrested in 1933, at the beginning of September 1933, together with the British journalist Mr. Panther of the Daily Telegraph in Munich.
Q. On what charges?
A. I was charged with having committed treason and high treason, committed by publications in British papers about National Socialism.
Q. What did those statements consist of, generally?
A. The accusations were generally concerned with the fact that the National Socialist regime was aiming at starting a new world conflagration, a new war.
Q. Were you sent to a concentration camp at that time?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Where were you sent?
A. After having spent some time in prison, I was sent to Dachau.
Q. How long were you in Dachau?
A. I was in Dachau from April to September, 1934.
Q. You were then released?
A. I was released in September, 1934.
Q. Were you again arrested in September, 1939?
A. From 1935 to 1938 I was arrested four times. I was for a time in the Wittelsbach-Palais in Munich, which was the Gestapo prison.
Q. What were the charges?
A. There were no real charges. It was purely a continuation of the first case.
Q. Then again in September 1939 you were taken into custody?
A. I was again taken into custody and after a few days in prison I was sent to the Buchenwald concentration camp.
Q. How long did you remain in Buchenwald?
A. I remained in Buchenwald up to 4 January 1944 when I was transferred to Dora, near Nordhausen, where I remained until the end of the war.
Q. Is Dora a branch camp of Buchenwald?
A. Dora up to the summer of 1944 was an outside camp of Buchenwald concentration camp and only in the summer of 1944 was it an independent camp.
Q. Do you know whether or not this was under Amtsgruppe D of the WVHA - Dora, that is?
A. All our letters which were sent to the medical department at Berlin were sent to the Group Office D-III to Oberstandartenfuehrer Lolling.
Q. How long did you stay in concentration camp Dora, Nordhausen?
A. In Dora, Nordhausen, I stayed from 4 January 1944 up to the Beginning of April of 1945 when the camp was evacuated Because the Americans approached.
Q. What kind of work were you assigned to do in Buchenwald when you were sent there in September 1939?
A. For some months I worked in the diggers company, and at the end of 1939 I was employed in the pathological department as a medical clerk and at Buchenwald I did this until 5 January 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal II is in recess until 0930 hours tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 24 April 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 24 April 1947, 0945 - 1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court.
DR. HOFFMANN (For Defendant Scheide): May it please the Tribunal, I only want to say very few words with regard to the recessing of this Tribunal. May it please the Tribunal, today we are trying to procure an affidavit of some other document. We need at least four weeks, that is, from the time we send it out until the time it comes back to us. In part I can only send these copies after the Prosecution has presented its case, and therefore when I prepare my case, I will not be able to prepare my case thoroughly if I have not sufficient time.
It is also necessary for me to find some witnesses who are located in the various camps. To bring these witnesses here would take far too much time and would be too much trouble. If, however, I travel to them I must count upon the fact I will need at least three or four days to visit a camp, and if I have to visit two or three camps, I need at least a time limit of fourteen days in order to be able to visit all these witnesses in the camps. I therefore request that we be granted a recess of two weeks, which my colleague, Dr. Seidl, has already requested.
JOSEF ACKERMANN - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Herr Ackermann, you understand that you are still under oath to tell the truth?
A. Yes.
Q. You were committed to Buchenwald Concentration Camp in September, 1939?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell the Court again what the charges against you were at that time?
In the year 1939 no charges were raised against me at all, but I was only arrested and I was sent to the concentration camp without ever having been interrogated or without having been given a trial. For this reason I never found out why I was arrested in the year 1939.
Q. But you had been previously arrested in 1933 for articles you had published in England?
Yes. I had to assume that my arrest in the year 1939 was the automatic result of my previous confinement, because I was not considered politically loyal.
Q. What kind of work were you given to do in Buchenwald when you were confined there?
A. During the first few months I had to perform manual work with the pit command, and I had to work with various other detachments, and then towards the end of 1939 I was sent to work to the pathological department as clerk of the physician there.
Q. And what kind of work did you do in the pathological section as a physician's clerk?
A. With every autopsy of prisoners' bodies I had to be present, and I had to make a record there about the autopsy, and I also had to write it down.
Q. You made the post mortem reports, in other words?
A. Yes. Furthermore I also had to keep a list of the people who had died, and I had to carry out the other correspondence work of the pathological section.
Q. Who was your superior in that work?
A. I had a whole number of superiors, physicians.
Q. Can you give us the names of some of the doctors who supervised your work?
A. The first of them was an SS-Untersturmfuehrer, Dr. Gutacker. He was succeeded by Dr. Victor Lewe, Untersturmfuehrer. Then later on Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Mueller came, and later Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Blaza took over the direction of the pathological section. De. Hoven, besides his activity as a camp physician, also was in charge of the pathological section for some period of time.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt just a minute to note for the record that all the defendants are present in court, including the Defendant Fanslau, this morning.
Q. (By Mr. Robbins) Is that Dr. Waldemar Hoven that you referred to?
A. Dr. Waldemar Hoven, yes. He is a defendant in the medical trial.
Q. Do you have any knowledge of the extraction of gold teeth from the bodies of the extraction of gold teeth from the bodies of the deceased inmates?
A. We had an order from the camp physician according to which the gold teeth were to be removed from all dead prisoners, and they were to be turned over to the administrative leader, Barnewald. In every case the gold was weighed. Then it was put into a bag and turned over to Hauptsturmfuehrer Barnewald, and he issued a receipt for it which I kept in my files in the pathological section.
Q. Do you know where this order that you just referred to came from?
A. I cannot tell you that because I did not see the original order at Buchenwald. Contrary to Dora, where I was also the clerk of the camp physician, where I also saw all orders, even the secret orders where I kept them in my files, in Buchenwald I only heard of these orders by way of the camp physician.
Q. Do you know where the gold was sent?
A. We turned the gold over to Barnewald, and we assumed that he turned it over to his superior agency, which would be the WVHA. However, we did not discover any more details about that.
Q. In your work as physician's clerk in the pathological section, was it also a part of your duties to compose post mortem findings on the prisoners who were shot on escape?
A. All prisoners, if they had died of a natural death or if they died by force automatically came to me. They were sent there. Usually I also received all the corpses of people who had been beaten to death in the bunker, and also people who had been shot while trying to escape. It was my task to first of all make a record as to their condition, and I had to state where the bullets entered the body and where they left it, and I had to determine the inner wounds and the causes of death.
Q. Herr Ackermann, can you give us some idea of how many prisoners were beaten to death and shot on escape per day or per week, per month?
A. It was very difficult to give a general figure because the numbers varied. There were times when as a result of the readjustment of the camp leaders, the so-called shootings while trying to escape or the other killings which took place increased enormously, and they were carried out at times. It is impossible to give any average figure, but there were days when until ten-thirty in the morning approximately twelve, thirteen, and fourteen shootings while trying to escape took place.
Q. Is it true that on some occasions that the names of the prisoners who would be shot during escape was known in the pathological section the day before they were actually shot?
A. We usually knew already on the evening before who would be shot while trying to escape the following day, and almost the entire camp knew of that, including the person concerned, because Case 4, Court II the Scharfuehrer on the day before proclaimed that in a certain way, and they would tell the man, "You will be shot tomorrow while trying to escape."
In many cases the individual prisoner was given the advice, "Go voluntarily into the chain of guards tomorrow, because your death has already been decided upon, and it is better if you die from a bullet than if you are finished off in the bunker."
Q. Do you know if the Austrian Konsul, Dr. Steidler, received such a fate?
A. The Austrian Konsul-General, Dr. Steidler, was located in my block, and every evening I had political and philosophical discussions with him. On the evening before he died he informed me that on the following day he would be shot while trying to escape, and he told me in addition it was extremely difficult for him because he was a faithful Catholic and because he condemned suicide and refuted it from the standpoint of his religion. However, Oberscharfuehrer Blank had informed him that his death had already been decided upon for the files and he was giving him the advice to run into the chain of guards voluntarily, because his death in the bunker would probably be more painful than a bullet from the guard.
A That his death was decided upon in advance is also shown by the fact that one day prior to his death his son, Dr. Steidle, Jr., who was located in the same camp and in the same block, was sent to a transport to Dachau without reason whatsoever. It was generally assumed that this was still a gesture of humanity, at least, not to let the son see in the same camp how his father was being shot.
Q And was he shot while trying to escape on the morning following your conversation with him?
A He was shot while trying to escape. That is to say, he went into the chain of guards and the guard aimed his rifle at him and shot him down. Two hours after, I had seen him for the last time; I had him on my table where I performed the autopsy, and he was dead.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we have the name of the Austrian Counsel-General spelled?
MR. ROBBINS: That is Dr. S-t-e-i-d-l-e.
THE WITNESS: His name is S-t-e-i-d-l-e.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Where were these post-mortem report sent?
A The post-mortem reports were kept in the Pathological Section in the closet which I had in my office.
Q And were copies sent to anyone?
AAt the beginning, up to seven and eight copies were typed out, and a copy was made of all cases where people had died of a death which was not natural. That was sent to the SS court at Duesseldorf. Another copy automatically went to the physician in charge, with "The Inspectorate of Concentration Camp Oranienburg, Attention Standartenfuehrer Dr. Lolling." Another copy went to the political section of the camp, and to the camp administration. The records which had accumulated annually, prepared in the book bindery shop, I kept then with me.
They must have been discovered when the camp was occupied.
In the big register of all the deaths which occurred, I also carefully listed the names of all persons who had died, Their place of birth and all the other dates in their lives were also listed. And this book also must have been found when the camp was occupied.
Q Herr Ackermann, did you have conversations with Dr. Hoven concerning the collection of skulls?
A Dr. Hoven, who was the director of the Pathological Section for a rather extended period of time, repeatedly asked us to furnish him with skulls - and not only skulls, but also skeletons. That was by order of the physician in charge of the concentration camp Oranienburg, Dr. Lolling. Frequently, he also turned over to me the correspondence from Dr. Lolling and in these letters it was stated, "I need immediately ton entire skeletons, one dozen skulls... or individual parts of a body," or, "we need some interesting bullet wounds," and pathological medicines were also requested. Every few weeks we sent to the SS Medical Academy at Graz large boxes with the pathological symptoms of diseases, of special drugs. That is to say, we sent parts of bodies which were to be exhibited to physicians who were being trained.
Q. Was Dr. Hoven a subordinate of Dr. Lolling?
A Dr. Hoven was subordinated to Dr. Lolling, however, he was not subordinated to him to a great extent, because during his vacation he acted as deputy to Dr. Lolling on many occasions. On one occasion he represented him for three or four months, and during that period of time he stayed at Oranienburg, and he took care of all the official business of Dr. Lolling. During this period of time he he communicated with me through teletype, and at that time he ordered me to carry on the correspondence with the dean of the medical faculty of the University of Freiburg with regard to his work which was carried out by the prisoners and which was not mentioned at all.
That was a doctor's thesis which he only saw after it had already been put in the form of a book - and even then he did not read it. At the period of time when I was negotiating with the dean, Dr. Hoven still did not have the slightest idea what was contained in the book.
Q Herr Ackermann, do you know of any instances in which Dr. Hoven pointed out an inmate and said, "I want his skull in my collection"?
A Yes, I can remember the day when he came to me when a prisoner walked past. I did not know this prisoner personally, however, apparently, Dr. Hoven knew him. And he told me, "Ackermann, I would like to have this skull on my desk tomorrow." Then he came to me with a note and he apparently had jotted down a number on it. The very same evening, the prisoner was ordered to report to the hospital and on the next day he was on my autopsy table and the skull was taken apart, and it was turned over to Dr. Hoven.
I believe that I can state and assume that this was a prisoner who perhaps had been named to him by the illegal camp administration.
Q Herr Ackermann, you know of instances where the tatoos on the skin of inmates were collected?
A Yes, that was a specialty of the pathological section in Buchenwald already at a very early period: to take off the skin of prisoners and to tan it. Production was carried out by two ways: either it was put into a transparent form, or it was tanned so that the skin became tough, like leather.
The order was issued for the first time by the chief of the Pathological Section; I believe it was Dr. Gutacker or Dr. Lewe. But the order originated by Dr. Lolling and Dr. Lolling said that the frequency of tatoos being found on prisoners was very significant, and that a very interesting collection could be made here. And the order was given that every prisoner who had a tatoo would have his skin taken off after his death. Tatoos were then kept in the Pathological Section, and they were constantly turned over to Berlin, to Dr. Lolling.
Q Do you know whether it was considered among the inmates to be a rather dangerous thing, to have an interesting tatoo on one's body?
A Yes, Dr. Eisele was given the order that every prisoner had to report to the hospital. That is to say, every prisoner who had a tatoo at any place on his body. These tatoos were registered and, in the case of prisoners who had newly arrived, it was stated in the files what tatoos they had and where they were located on his body.
Q Do you know whether any of these tatoos were sent to Amtsgruppe D in Berlin?
A They were sent to Amtsgruppe D-III, Attention of Dr. Lolling.
Q Do you know of instances in which shrunken skulls were prepared and collected in Buchenwald?
A I did not entirely understand the question (Question repeated by interpreter)
Q A shrunken skull or a mummified skull?
A Yes, we did not only prepare skeleton. But for the first time in Europe we did something which, until that period of time, was only known from the descriptions in the journals of South Africa. That is, the manufacture of shrunken skulls.