Q. How long were you ill?
A. It took a long time until I was cured. I still had scars when we left for Charkow. On the 27th or 28th of November we left Kiev and went to Cherkov and during this march, which in all took about ten days, and owing to the strain of the march -
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, the Prosecution is very obviously desirous of getting from you a chronology as to the perios of time that you were disabled because of illness. Now instead of going into a great detail, detail much of which has already been given to us, state the dates. Now you have told us from July 10 to August 10 you were in the hospital, August 13 to September 13 you were in the hospital. Now when was the next period of disablement. Give us the dates.
A. During the time of September I was in the commando in a special room because there were no hospitals or they were over-crowded.
Q. You were disabled from what day, from what date in September to what date?
A. About the 13th of August until about a month later.
Q. You have given us that and you have told us the first time that you were in a hospital. Now you tell me you were in a room. After September 13th when did you become disabled again?
A. I said that I became ill and remained with the commando and a staff physician of the AUK 6 looked after me there. In Kiev I had been wounded in the head and was kept in my quarters.
Q. I am sorry I don't speak German so I can't give it to you in German, out I am trying to make it as clear as possible and I am certain you are getting the translation accurately. Give us the dates that you were disabled. Now we have got as far as September 13th. when was the time you again because disabled after September 13th?
A. The 24/9/41.
Q. Until when?
A. Until the departure on the 27th or 28th of November from Kiev.
Q. Very well, September 24th to November 28th?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now the next time you were unabled to perform your duties?
A. At the end of December until the beginning of October or rather February, 1942, in the first third, I don't know the exact date, about the 10th of February, I was up for about ten days and from the end of February until the middle of March I was down again.
Q. That covers the whole period of your illnesses during that campaign?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will not be in recess until five minutes past two.
(The Tribunal adjourned for the noon recess) (The Tribunal met pursuant to noon recess at 1400 hours)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: May it please the Tribunal. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Herr Blobel, you commented yesterday on Document Book I, page 131 in the English, and page 159 in the German book. This is your affidavit NO 3824, Exhibit No. 31. You commented on paragraph 8 of this affidavit, and I quote: "During the last days of September 1941 the Sonderkommando 4-A in cooperation with the group staff of the Einsatzgruppe-C, and two units of the police regiments stationed in Kiev, carried out the mass executions of Jews in Kiev." You said about this sentence, that the passage "By order of Higher SS and Police Leader" was missing, is that right?
A. Yes, I said that.
Q. And did also say, that this passage "By order of the Higher SS and Police Leader" was contained in the original which you signed, and, is that in the copies before the Tribunal? Is that what you want to say?
A. I had assumed that the supplement of this missing sentence had no ending, as it says here, "During the last days of September 1941 the Sonderkommando 4-A in cooperation with the group staff of the Einsatzgruppe-C, and two units of the police regiments stationed in Kiev." and there is no end of the sentence, and, then it just states the number which I had mentioned.
Q. I'll ask you another question. Do you want to say that in your original which you signed, and which is in the photostat before the Tribunal this sentence "By order of the Higher SS and Police Leader." is contained? Is that what you wanted to say yesterday when you said this passage was missing, or did you think that this passage was missing just in order to make the sentence complete, and this is an addition which you make only now?
Court No. II-A, Case No. IX.
and at the time when I made it out, it was to the effect that it was on the orders of the Higher Police and SS Leader. this passage "by order of the Higer SS and Police Leader" was not included, was it?
Q By whom? something missing in the sentence which has been overlooked. would now add the passage to it, do you not? But it was not contained in the original, which you cited, is that correct? This is an addition which you are making now, an explanation to the sentence, but not a part of the document, is that right? That is the only thing I am asking you. sentence, or rather, this addition was contained. before the Tribunal as an exhibit, this sentence, "by order of the Higher SS and Police Leader" is contained, is that what you say?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, could the SecretaryGeneral get Exhibit No. 31 for the inspection of the Tribunal and of the interpreters?
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please get that exhibit.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Will you turn now
DR. HEIM: Dr. Heim for the Defendant Blobel. lowing fact: The witness just now said "should", "should" be contained in the original. I think it was translated "must be". The conjunction wasused in the German and not the indicative, because the witness did not say it was contained but it should be contained.
I would only like to say this, in order to prevent any misunderstandings, that the Prosecution should not say that it actually was contained in the document book in the original document, in case it is not contained in the document.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Whether in the mimeographed copies which were made, this very important passage was left out by mistake or whether the witness signed a document in which this passage is not contained, wasthe only reason for this line of questioning, and I do think it was perfectly clear, I asked the witness whether he meant this as an explanation to the sentence or whether that was left out in the copies. It is not clear from his statement in direct examination, and I only wanted to make clear whether by mistake of the people who copied the document this sentence was left out. Nothing else is being implied.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the statement by Dr. Heim change your question?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Not at all; not at all.
Q (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) In Paragraph 9 of the affidavit which is on the next page - your Honors, page 132 - you stated that the Defendants Rasch and Radetsky and a certain Dr. Beyer took over the Sonderkommando 4a when you were absent for reasons of health. You now say that none of these three persons replaced you but that it was a certain Oversturmbannfuehrer Meyer commanded Sonderkommando 4a in your absence, is that correct? fuehrer Meyer took over the kommando in my absence. Wartenberg, is that correct? time and when reading through the documents I suddenly remembered the exact facts of the case namely that it was not Radetzky who was the kommando leader in my absence but that it was actually Sturmbannfuehrer Meyer who wasappointed to this post by the Higher SS and Police Leader, and I said furthermore that I went through the names of leaders with Mr. Wartenberg and we consulted each other as it were, as to who could have been in charge of the kommando, and we suddenly remembered the name of Radetzky.
point in the meantime, between the execution of the affidavit which wasthe 6th of June, 1947, and your testimony here, is that right? corrected my statement, is that what you mean?
Q It was between the 6th of June and yesterday, is that right?
AAnd now, yes. I had suddenly remembered it when I went through the documents again. signed the affidavit? not a real officer, he was only a war emergency appointment, is that correct? appointment was valid only for service in the RSHA but not for an assignment in the Einsatzgruppe, is that true?
A No, that is not quite correct. We had various war emergency commissions or appointments who were men who had been drafted, like, for instance, the Interpreter Mueller or the Interpreter Radetzky. The difference between them and other leaders was that they had no military and no special training, but on the other hand, they had a special knowledge, like knowledge of languages, for instance, like Russian or Ukrainian, and for this purpose they were assigned and drafted to the East.
Hauptsturmfuehrer at all? wasn't a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the Security Police; he was just wearing the uniform of the unit in which he had been before. As far as I know it is the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle.
Q Washe a Hauptsturmfuehrer or was he not a Hauptsturmfuehrer? I did not question you on what uniform he were. I am just questioning you on the rank, nothing else. reason that he would have been a Tribunal commissar and in that case he would have had a police rank, a service rank and corresponding certificate; with the aid of these certificates one recognized the actual official rank and also the civilian rank which goes with this service rank. The State Police had a red certificate; Criminal Police had a red certificate, red paper with a green line, and the members of the SD had a red certificate with a white crossing line. All those who were not in possession of such certificate either had their SS pass of the General SS according to which they held the same rank within the SS, or they had a temporary SS pass which only authorized them to the uniform.
Q Witness, I do not think that you answered my question. I asked you whether you know or you do not know whether Radetzky was a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the SS or not.
Q Radetzky was not a Hauptsturmfuehrer of the Security Police. He wore a uniform of an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer of an SS unit, of the VOMI, whichwas part of the SS, V-o-m-i, and was only on a war emergency basis.
Q I ask you this very specific question for the third time. I did not ask you what kind of uniform he wore. I do want to hear from you whether he was a commissioned officer, a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the SS.
Nothing else did I ask you. It is V-o-m-i, part military organization. If he was a Hauptsturmfuehrer he could have been a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the SS, is that correct, but he could not have been a Hauptsturmfuehrer in the Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle. So, was he a Hauptsturmfuehrer of the SS, and please, I have explained that now fifteen times, will you answer the question with yes or no? Mittelstelle, was an SS agency. SS the Defendant Radetzky was, would have been in the position to be a leader of Teilkommando or Vorkommando according to his rank? have been superior to other officers, and in this case he would have had certain experience in interrogations. We would have been an interrogations officer, because that was the purpose.
Q. I do not think that you answered the question. I asked you whether Hauptsturmfuehrer Radetzky, according to his rank, would have been in the position to become a leader of a Teilkommando or Vorkommando. Will you tell the Tribunal yes or no, then you can explain why he could have been or why he could not have been, but it is absolutely necessary that you answer these very specific and very clear questions with yes or no.
A. As a Haupsturmfuehrer of the SS, that is as Hauptsturmfuehrer of the General-SS, he could not become a leader, a commander of an Einsatzkommando.
Q. So it is your contention that it would have been impossible that Radetzky ever would have been in the position to become a leader of a Teilkommando or Vorkommando, is that your contention?
A. Radetzky could not in any case, in the form in which he appeared on the horizon in a war emergency commission, could, I say, not be superior to other officers in any shape or form. He only held a war emergency commission.
Q. Will you please answer the question and then explain. I am in no position to find out from your information whether you answer my questions in the affirmative or the negative. I do not know. Possibly I am not clever enough to understand it. The question is, could Radetzky, having been a Haupsturmfuehrer of the SS, ever have received the position of a leader of a Teilkommando or of a Vorkommando, or was it by the simple fact that he was, as you say, on a war emergency status, would this status exclude him from this position?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, now you have put three questions into that one question. You can't get a yes or no answer.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Two questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, two. Let's make it only one and then you can logically demand a yes or no answer.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I am sorry, Your Honor. I only wanted to explain to the witness both the positive and negative side of the question.
I withdrew the question and repeat.
Q. ( By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) Was it possible for Radetzky, having been a Haupsturmfuehrer in the SS, to become a leader of a Teilkommando or Vorkommando?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, is that a question which can be answered with yes or no?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, certainly.
A. Ho, that was not possible.
Q. (By Mr. Horlick-Hochwald) All right, did you ever speak with Radetzky about the Fuehrer order as the order was handed down by Streckenbach?
A. The general information about happenings in Pretsch or what had been said by Streckenbach in Pretsch was in the presence of all the leaders, and they were, of course, immediately informed about it.
Q. So Radetzky knew about this order?
A. why, the leaders knew the order; the leaders were aware of the order.
Q. Did you ever speak to him about this order?
A. It was in fact discussed by us in Pretsch.
Q. Did you, Mr. Blobel, speak to Hauptsturmfuehrer Radetzky about the Hitler order?
A. As I said, it was made known generally to the leaders in Sokal when the Einsatzkommando was stationed there, and when it assigned to its task by the Oberfuehrer, by the Superior Commander, and Radetzky was present on that occasion.
Q. Shall I imply from that, what you said, that you do not want to answer this question? The question was, did you, Herr Blobel, speak to Hauptsturmfuehrer Radetzky about the Fuehrer order. Will you answer that with yes or no, please? You gave already explanations that he know about it. How I am interested to hear from you whether you spoke to him about it.
A. Yes, Radetzky was present at this discussion with all the other leaders. I did not speak to him myself when alone with him, We were there when the information was made know.
Q. Did Radetzky ever voice an objection against this order to you?
A. At the time Radetzky waid that he had been assigned to the SK-4a as an interpreter and in my direct examination I stated that I drew Radetzky's attention to the fact, in Sokal, that he, as an untrained police expert, he could not ne put in change of a subkommando in the Army units; therefore he had to take over the safe-blasting kommando where he had been put in charge of security files and documents.
Q. Herr Blobel, you did not answer my question, and it is quite obvious that you evaded answering the questions I am putting to you. The question was very specific. Did Radetsky over voice to you objections against the Fuehrer order?
A. Yes, he talked to me about it, and the discussion took place that he would not be considered for this order he had gone to the S-III, and therefore he carried but those tasks.
Q. I do not think that what you have just said answers the question. Did he object specifically to the contents of the order, that means to the killing of all Jews, gypsies and Communists. Did he do that?
A. Do you mean to say -- Is that what I understood?
( The question was repeated by the interpreter.)
A. Yes, he drew my attention to the fact that he was only there as an interpreter and that he was not qualified. He said that he was not qualified to be with anything else, and of course, he thus expressed objections.
Q. What did he say as to the objection? You said, "You can't be," to him. You said that he had objected, What kind of objection did he voice?
A. He said, "I have been engaged, and I have been detailed here as an interpreter, and I do not have to deal with tasks of the assignment of the Einsatz itself.
I must be used as an interpreter only." "Yes", I said, "as a police expert without any training you cannot be put in charge of a kommando and therefore you will be an interpreter."
Q. You have told us what he said?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he over ask you to be relieved from his position as he could not bear the fact that defenseless people were constantly killed in very great numbers by the unit in which he served as an officer?
A. Such a personal suggestion, or rather personal plea, Radetzky did not send to me, I don't know if he spoke to Dr. Rasch about it.
Q. What was done if Radetzky or others of your officers would have voiced such objections and asked to be relieved from the assignment?
A. It would have been my duty to send this gentleman to Dr. Rasch and ask him to discuss the question with this authority, As far as that is concerned, he could have gone.
Q. You would have sent him to Dr. Rasch, is that correct?
A. Yes, I would have sent him to Dr. Rasch.
Q. There would have been no action against this officer on your part?
A. Well, that depended on Dr. Rasch's stops or Dr. Rasch's attitude.
Q. I asked on your part, Herr Blobel, and not on the part of Dr. Rasch. You would have taken no action against Radetzky or another of the officers if he would have asked to be released as he did not want to carry out the Hitler order. You would have taken no action, is that correct?
A. If I had received the orders for it, but if he just said, "I want to be released from my post", as far as I am concerned, I would have said, "Go to Dr. Rasch. As far as I am concerned, you can go."
Q. I would like now to turn to your assignment in Einsatzkomando 1005, That was a special task of the burning of the corpses in mass graves, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Is that a document number, Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: No, if Your Honors please, this special assignment which was given to the witness by the Chief of the Gestapo, Mueller, was known under a code name, Einsatskommando 1005, and that was what my question was.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but I didn't get any question from your statment to him.
Q. (By Mr, Horlick-Hochwald) The question was whether Einsatzkommando 1005 was the code name for this special task of burning of the borpses in mass graves?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: That was the question, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. HEIN: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT BLOBEL) Your Honor, I object to this set of question. The Operation 1005, that is, the burning of corpses from the graves in the East is of no value for the proceedings here. In my opening statement I made statements to this effect and I said that the burning of corpses is not a punishable act and it does not matter by whom these persons were executed. In the opening of this set of questions, I only see an unnecessary extension of the proceedings here and I deem this set of questions of no probative value whatsoever. I would like, therefore, to ask you not to have these questions answered.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, if I am not very much mistaken. Dr. Heim asked the witness many questions about these special assignments. It is in the nature of cross-examination that I should be permitted to ask the witness any questions which, were put to him during direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Regardless of whether Dr. Heim opened this subject in direct examination, the subject is mentioned in the documents and therefore it becomes part of the res gestae of the case. Cross examination may be continued.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Before I go into this point, it possibly would please the court to see the affidavit of Blobel in order to ascertain whether the passage "By order of the Higher SS and Police Leader" in para. 8 of the document is in the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, first indicate so that the record will be very specific on the subject what the mimeographed copy states, what the original photostat states, and what the witness himself stated so that if there is any discrepancy along the line it will appear in the record.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, I want to quote from page 131 of Document Book I, in which this document is contained. This is NO-3824, Prosecution Exhibit 31. Paragraph 8 of the mimeographed copy, is contained in the document book roads: "During the last days of September 1941, the Sonderkommando 4a, in cooperation with the Group Staff of the Einsatzgruppe C and two units of the police regiments stationed in Kiew carried out the mass execution of Jews in Kiew."
Would it be agreeable to the Tribunal to have the interpreter check the German text of the exhibit with this English translation?
THE PRESIDENT: Now is that the sentence which is in dispute?
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: That is the sentence which is in dispute.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. The photostat may be submitted to the interpreters. It is enough if the interpreters will compare the photostat with the mimeographed copy and indicate whether the translation in the mimeograph is faithful or not.
(The interpreters did as requested.)
INTERPRETER HILDESHEIMER: It is the exact wording, Your Honor. The wording of both sentences is identical.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Let us proceed now to something else.
Q. Herr Blobel, is it true that you entrusted with the special task of burning of corpses in mass graves by the Chief of the Gestapo Mueller, is that correct?
A. No, that is incorrect in this form. The assignment was turned over to the Commander of the Security Police and SD on the Eastern Front and I had merely the task to collect the order from Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.
Q. Did you not do anything else?
A. No.
Q. You didn't do anything else but go from Berlin to the Higher SS and Police leaders and tell then there is an order in existence to the effect that you have to burn these things?
A. No, I had nothing to do with Higher SS and Police readers either. I acted by order of the Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us get this very specifically, and see if we can avoid the wasting of unnecessary time. Your affidavit reads as follows: "In the Fall of 1942, I was assigned to go to the occupied territories as Mueller's deputy and to wipe out the traces of mass graves of people executed by the Einsatzgruppe," Is that correct?
TEE WITNESS: In this form it is not correct. I have the document here.
THE PRESIDENT: It is followee by the sentence, "This was my task until summer of 1944." Is that correct? Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Gruppenfuehrer Mueller gave me the order to submit the order to the SS leaders to burn down the graves.
THE PRESIDENT: How does that differ from what appears in this affidavit?
THE WITNESS: There is no exact difference.
THE PRESIDENT: How, witness, you are causing us to lose a lot of time. When a question is put to you very specifically, you say it is not correct. Then we talk about it a little while and you say it is correct. How please listen to the questions and answer. How you tell us that this is correct, your statement in the affidavit is correct.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. How don't waste any time upon that feature. That is correct.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
Q. When did you start with these tasks?
A. At the end of June 1942 Gruppenfuehrer Mueller gave me the order for the first time to go to the BDS, in the Ukraine, and to pass on the order to burn down the graves on his special order. This first journey had to be postponed, however, because I had received another order and I had to wait then in the vicinity of Litzmannstadt. The burning were carried out, test burnings, in fact, and in September 1942 I went to the Ukraine to see Dr. Thomas for the first time and I passed on the order to him. Dr. Thomas refused to carry out this order and he said it was non sensical.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: May I interrupt the witness, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q. That was not what I asked you. I only asked you when did you start?
You have said all that which you have just told to Thomas already in direct examination. You started in summer 1942, is that right?
A. In Summer 1942, we had these test burnings. The actual task was only started in the next year, in June and July.
Q. 1943, I take it. Was it?
A. Yes, 1943, yes.
Q. Were you present during such operations?'
A. During the test burnings I was present, yes.
Q. And were you also present when mass graves were burned, later when the experiments were already finished?
A. Yes, on one particular soot, I saw a place near Kiew which had been burned.
Q. By when was the actual work carried out?
A. In Kiew there were Ukrainian SS men or a company of SS men, members of the BDS, and members of the SS and Police leadership Office and the Regular Police.
Q. Were no laborers used in order to carry out the dirty work? Only SS men would do that?
A. Ukrainian SS men were assigned to the digging works.
Q. He laborers, no Russian laborers or soldiers?
A. He, Uniformed Ukrainian SS men, a company.
Q. I didn't catch this, They were not in uniform, these SS, is that what you said?
A. They were in uniform, uniformed Ukrainian SS units.
Q. And they carried out -
A. They were uniforms.
Q. And they carried out all the dirty work. You did not use any Russian laborers at all?
A. For this purpose, no Russians were used.
Q. Only SS men?
A. Yes, these SS men.
Q. And what happened to these SS men, as you say, after such an operation was finished?
Did you take then along with you, or did they stay at the place, or did you have some specialists, some special laborers, who did the work?
A. I was never in charge of any komnandos at that place. That was a matter to be dealt with by the competent commanders or the Supreme Commander of the Security Police. It was under his charge.
Q. Whose kommandos were they?
A. Those were the commandos of the Supreme Commander of the Security Police in the Ukraine.
Q. Can you tell the Tribunal what Einsatzkommando 1005 was?
A. This name, this term, 1005, must have been invented by somebody or other. It wasn't an official term, It was coined, and that is a self-assumed name.
Q. I just want to know, you stated in your affidavit that Mueller entrusted you with the task of removing the tracesof executions carried out by Einsatzgruppen in the East. He entrusted you. You are going to tell me that you were not at all interested in this task, that you just locked on, when the Higher SS and Polizeifuehrers arrived there. Is that what you are going to imply?
A. He, no, that is not correct, as you say it. I had to take this order to the BDS and the BDS had to take care that in his territory all these places were actually burned. He had to assign his own kommandos for these tasks.
Q. Did you have some specialists with you who showed these people who were actually active in the burning, how they should do it, or did you advise them to, or how was the whole thing done?
A. No experts, no skilled workers were necessary for this assignment. The covers were lifted, the covers of the graves; motor fuel was filled into them, or any kind of fuel, and suddenly a great torch was lit. That was the whole task.
Q. And this task was carried out solely by SS men and no laborers were used, is that your contention?
A. He, we needed no civilian workers. I never saw any civilian workers in this task. They were all SS men. They were paid for their work. They got double and three times their ration for their work.
Q. But no civilians--
THE PRESIDENT: He has stated that several times, Mr. Hochwald. He civilians. They were SS men.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: I am sorry. I would like to offer Document NO-5498, which is an affidavit of the affiant Adolf Ruebe, Your Honor, as Prosecution Exhibit 181.
DR. HEIM (Attorney for the defendant Blobel): According to principle of the best evidence it would be possible for the Prosecution to call this affiant on the witness stand, especially as this affidavit was only made out seven days ago. At least, I want to apply to have this only admitted in evidence, if the affiant, a certain man called Ruebe, can be called in to the witness stand here.
MR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, I was not in a position to find out the whereabouts of Ruebe, but there can be no question that Dr. Heim can get the address of the affiant any time and that if he makes an application he can get the witness here for cross-examination. I therefore do think that the affidavit is perfectly admissible.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I would like to call your attention to the fact that in this affidavit, as well as in the affidavit by Hartel, submitted by the Prosecution this morning, the address is not mentioned, contrary to the regulations prevailing here for the submission of affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution is called upon to furnish Dr. Heim with the address, if they have it, of the affiant Hartl and the affiant Adolf Ruebe. With regard to the doucment now before the Tribunal, the same ruling will be made as was made this morning in connection with the Hartl affidavit. It may be used for the purpose of cross-examination but it will not be admitted in evidence at the present time. If Ruebe is called as a witness by either side and he confirms what is in the affidavit, then the affidavit may be introduced for the purpose of contredic tion. In questioning the witness on this affidavit, it will be suggested to the Prosecution it will not be necessary to read the entire affidavit into the record but only to read such parts as are immediately relevant in the cross-examination of the present Defendant on the witness stand.
HR. HORLICK HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, I intended to read only paragraph 4 of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.