This bears the original initial of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-1368, which is Prosecution Exhibit 464, found on page 4807 of the official transcript and was introduced during the examination of the Defendant Blome. It bears the original initials of the Defendant Roudolf Brandt. The next document, Your Honor, is Document NO-435, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 465. It is found on page 4983 of the transcript and was offered during the examination of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt. It has thereon various signatures, and letters from Himmler are attached thereto, and we will find endorsements which contain the original initials of the Defendant Rudolf Brandt. The Tribunal will recall that he properly identified them during the course of his examination.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-1198, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 466, found on page 5390 of the official transcript and is a letter from Grawitz to Mrugowsky which was introduced during the examination of the Defendant Mrugowsky. It is signed in a typewritten signature by Grawitz and then "by order of Grawitz," and the original signature of one, "Nicolai" appears on the original document.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-1303, which is Prosecution Exhibit 467, found on page 5400 of the official transcript and is a letter from Mrugowsky to the Reichsarzt SS, bearing the initials of the Defendant Mrugowsky.
The next document, Your Honor, is NI-034, which is an affidavit of a witness named Rudolf Hoess, and it is Prosecution Exhibit 468, found on page 5407 of the transcript and was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Mrugowsky.
This also bears a jurat thereon to the signature of Rudolf Hoess, of one Alfred H Buch, who is duly authorized by the chief of counsel to administer oaths. Your Honors will notice that in addition to this affidavit, which I may not have called to your attention during the course of the cross examination of the Defendant Mrugowsky, is a rather elaborate chart of the concentration camps in Germany. The Prosecution did not have this reproduced for the convenience of the Tribuna. However, the Tribunal will note that is is attached to the original, and if they desire photostatic copies thereof, they may well have the Secretary General reproduce them for their use.
Now, I just noticed this myself when I looked at the original exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be glad to have those photostatic copies.
MR. HARDY: It is nothing of evidential value, I think, Your Honor, other than the location of particular concentration camps.
DR. FLEMMING: (For Mrugowsky) Mr. President, I object to the submission of this chart. It was not included when the document was offered originally. I do not know this chart and therefore I must object, since I do not know what it shows.
MR. HARDY: I am not offering it in evidence, Your Honor, I was merely calling it to your attention. It is immaterial to me whether it is accepted into evidence or not. I thought for the convenience of the Tribunal if they would like to see a detailed map concerning the location of concentration camps, it is there for your perusal.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not received in evidence, not having been offered in evidence.
MR. HARDY: The next is Document NO-1305, Your Honor, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 469, which is found on page 5426 of the official transcript and was offered during the course of the cross examination of the Defendant Mrugowsky.
DR. GAWLICK: Mr. President, I should like to have the Prosecution explain whether this ehxibit is to be used only against the Defendant Mrugowsky or also against the Defendant Dr. Hoven, who is mentioned in it.
MR. HARDY: I think I have amply explained that in our briefs, Your Honor. I am not in a position today to elaborate on each document. I have here several documents that number up into the fifties, and it would place a burden upon me, as one prosecutor, to enable each one of these defense counsel -- I am not in a position to write a brief for each one of them at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: When defendants' counsel receive the briefs of the Prosecution, the defendants' counsel will be fully advised as to which documents are relied upon as evidence against which particular defendant or defendants.
MR. HARDY: I might state that he may rest assured that this document will be used against him if it has any connection with the typhus experiments at Buchenwald, and he may guide himself accordingly in his brief.
The next Document is NO-1188, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 470, which is found on page 5437 of the official transcript and was offered during the cross examination of the Defendant Mrugowsky. This has the original signature of Lolling. The next is Document NO-1189, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 471 and is found in the original transcript on page 5440 and was offered during the cross examination of the Defendant Mrugowsky, and you will recall at that time that the document was objected to by Defense Counsel and that the defendant himself indicated that he was fully aware of the contents of the document, and at that time the objection was withdrawn.
THE PRESIDENT: Just delay a moment, Counsel, before offering the next document.
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor. I want to call to the Tribunal's attention that this last document also bears thereon the original signature of Dr. Ding. It's in the left-hand corner, second page of the original document.
The next document. Your Honor, is Document No-1197, which is introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 472 and is found on page 5451 of the official transcript and bears the signature of the Defendant Mrugowsky. If I recall correctly, he properly Identified that as his signature during cross examination. The next is Document NO-2734, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 473, which is found on page 5622 of the official transcript. It is a letter from Grawitz to Himmler regarding clinical surgical experimentation by Gebhardt, with enclosures. The original has the signature of Grawitz thereon; it also has the original signature of the Defendant Gebhardt and a note thereon, and in addition to that, on the last page of the document, we note the original signature of the Defendant Poppendick, which was properly identified by the Defendant in the course of his examination. This was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Poppendick.
DR. SEIDL: (for Gebhardt) Mr. President, I object to the admission of this document at the present time. Document NO-2734 was not shown to the Defendant Karl Gebhardt in cross examination but to the Defendant Poppendick. It was It was obviously shown to the Defendant Poppendick only in order to determine the correctness of his signature at the end of the document.
Only one photostatic copy was shown to the Defendant Dr. Poppendick on the witness stand by the Prosecution. Defendant Gebhardt nor I myself had any knowledge of the contents of this document. Today I see this document for the first time. Consequently I have had no opportunity to present any evidence against the contents of this document. In view of the fact that the Prosecution has not as yet given the Defense any copies of this Document, I make application that this document be admitted only for identification but not as an exhibit.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honors, it amazed me no end that Dr. Seidl hasn't seen this before, because it was a tonic of conversation here for several weeks that we had a document, an original report of the experiments of Gebhardt, and it seems to me that I recall even chatting with Defense Counsel about it, but I may be recalling incorrectly. However, this document is a rebuttal document in the same manner as all the rest. The Defendant Gebhardt took this stand and said that Mrugowsky had nothing to do with these experiments. Right in this document he thanks or wishes to thank Mrugowsky, Blumenreuther, and so forth for their assistance. This document is in the nature of a rebuttal document. It is a German document, and it couldn't be any more original than it is. It has been in the hands of Defense Counsel, to my knowledge, Defense Counsel for Poppendick had it for several days and had the opportunity to observe it, and whether or not the Defendant Gebhardt had an opportunity to be heard on the document is immaterial. It is a rebuttal document. It rebuts the testimony of the Defendant Gebhardt directly. I wish to pass it up to Your Honors, for your perusal.
MR. HARDY: (continued) As a matter of fact, Your Honor, it would have been introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Gebhardt had we received it. We found it coincidentally on the morning of the cross examination of Poppendick and it had his signature thereon. That's why I used it immediately. At that time it had not been processes but since then it has been processed, and I have been informed that copies have been delivered to defense counsel immediately upon the completion of the processing, which was during the course of the case of Poppendick. I am not certain, but as I remember this document was introduced on 9 April, and this is now 1 July.
THE PRESIDENT: The final record, on page 5622 as shown on this index would show what happened. The document will be received in evidence.
Counsel for the Defendant Gebhardt, of course, may make any argument in his brief against the application of this document to his client that he deems to be well founded.
MR. HARDY: The next document, Your Honor, is NO-1639, which is introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 474. It is found on page 5622 of the record. It was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Poppendick. This document bears the original signature of tho Reichsarzt SS, Dr. Grawitz.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I don't .... That is correct.
MR. HARDY: The next document, Your Honor, is NO........
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Counsel, I don't observe that this document boars the signature of Grawitz.
MR. HARDY: This is a letter by Grawitz to the Reichsarzt-SS on sterilization dated 7 September 1942.
THE PRESIDENT: The pages were not clipped together. I assumed that the exhibit constituted only the first page which is a complete document.
JUDGE SEBRING: I notice that in your schedule you have 1639 and 1639-a.
MR. HARDY: That is correct, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: And yet you have three pages of one document called No. NO-1639.
MR. HARDY: Just a moment. I think at that time I was introducing them with two different signatures, and it was Your Honor's suggestion that I break them up into NO-1639 and NO-1639-a. One is a letter of Grawitz and that's perhaps why it indicates 1 of 3 pages, because we broke them up for convenience at that time, if my memory serves me correctly. 1639 is merely the correspondence to Himmler signed by Grawitz.
JUDGE SEBRING: That will be 474 and the letter by Poppendick will be 475?
MR. HARDY: That is correct, Your Honor.
The next document is NO-1639-a, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 475 and is found on page 5622 of the record, which is a letter signed by the Defendant Poppendick, and his original signature appears thereon.
Do you have that straightened out now, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: What number document was that, Counsel?
MR. HARDY: That was 1639-a, which is Prosecution Exhibit it 475.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have that.
MR. HARDY: Right, now the next one. The next one is NO-1184, which is Prosecution Exhibit 476. This is found on page 5639 and was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Poppendick and bears the original signature of the Defendant Poppendick.
JUDGE SEBRING: Incidentally, on the left-hand side appears a hand-written statement "Ding for processing". In what handwriting is that?
MR. HARDY: That's Dr. Ding's signature in the left-hand corner, Your Honor. The other writing seems to be the same penmanship, but I recognize that as Dr. Ding's signature.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO 1182, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 477, which is on page 5641 of the official transcript and was offered during cross examination of the Defendant Poppendick and bears the original signature of one Vonkennel. This is an original German document on the stationery of Vonkennel.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, for Mrugowsky. In connection with document NO-1184, Judge Sebring said there was a signature at the left. Mr. Hardy said that was the signature of Ding. There isn't any signature on the left here. I should like to see the original. (Looks at original) That was not copied.
MR. HARDY: The next document, Your Honor, reference will be found on page 3 of the index. The first document on page 3 is NO-1185, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 478, which is found on page 5648 of the transcript and was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Poppendick, and this bears the original initials of Dr. Ding.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-975. It was offered as Prosecution Exhibit 479, which is found on page 5837 of the official transcript and was introduced during cross examination of the Defendant Sievers. This is a file copy of a letter to Professor Hirt.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-978. It is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 480, found on page 5843 of the record and was offered during the cross examination of the Defendant Sievers. It is a letter from Sievers to Gluecks. Pardon me. This is a plan of Military Scientific Research to be carried out in the concentration camp Natzweiler. The original exhibit is a copy and a notation that a copy was also sent to Professor Hirt.
No signature appears on the carbon copy. However, the rank of SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer appears below where the signature should appear. It is from the Chief of the Ahnenerbe and is assumed to be the Defendant Sievers' letter.
The next is Document NO-935, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 481, found on page 5845 of the record, was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Sievers. The first letter in this document bears the initials of Sievers, and in addition the second letter has the signature of Sievers thereon.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-977, which is Prosecution Exhibit 482. It is found in the transcript on page 5847. It was introduced during cross examination of the Defendant Sievers, and you will find the initials "i", the initials of the Defendant Sievers, appearing on the original document.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-2210, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 483, found on page 5850 of the official transcript and was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Sievers, and you will note that the original document bears the signature of the Defendant Sievers.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-1657, which is Prosecution Exhibit 484, found on page 5851 of the official record and is a document containing 4 letters. The first one bears the signature of Dr. Muehlens; the second one bears the signature of SS Brigadefuhrer Gluecks; the third letter bears the signature of Sievers; and the fourth letter bears the signature of Sievers.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-1331, which is Prosecution Exhibit 485, found on page 5859 of the record and was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Sievers. It is noted that the original initials of the Defendant Sievers appear on the document.
The next document, Your Honor, is Document NO-1756, which is Prosecution Exhibit 486, found in the transcript on page 6411; it was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Rose; a letter to Professor Schilling. It is a file copy.
The next document, Your Honor, is Document NO-1752, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 487, found on page 6415 of the record. It was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Rose and bears the original signature of Klaus Schilling, a letter addressed to Professor Rose.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-1753, Prosecution Exhibit 488, found on page 6418 of the official transcript and was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Rose, bears the original signature of Schilling and is addressed to Professor Rose.
The next document, Your Honor, id Document NO-1755, Prosecution Exhibit 489, found on page 6419 of the official transcript, was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Rose and bears the letter initial "R" of the Defendant Rose, a letter directed, to Dr. Klaus Schilling.
The next document, Your Honor, is document NO-1059, offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 490, found on page 6426 of the official record, was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Rose and is a file copy of a letter addressed to the Defendant Rose, which is a report on experiments with dehydrate typhus vaccine.
JUDGE SEBRING: Do you have any information about whom this letter is from?
MR. HARDY: This is a letter that the Prosecution, Your Honor, I can give you more direct information now that I have studied it more closely. This is a letter which the Prosecution found in the files of Professor Haagen. It is a file copy of a letter addressed to Professor Rose.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-1754, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 479, found on page 6460 of the official transcript, was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Rose and bears the original signature of the Defendant Mrugowsky.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not Exhibit 479, Counsel; it is 491, is it not?
MR. HARDY: 491. Pardon me, Your Honor. 491. The next document Your Honor, is Document NO-1186, which is Prosecution Exhibit 492, found on page 6463 of the record, was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Rose and bears the signature of the Defendant Rose and is addressed to the Defendant Mrugowsky. Concerning experiments with murine virus typhus vaccine.
The next document, Your Honors, is Document NO-1359, Prosecution Exhibit 493, found on page 7238 of the record, was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Weltz and is a file note signed or having the stamped signature of the Defendant Sievers. This is concerning Rascher's assignment at Dachau.
If Your Honors please, I request that you now turn to page 4 of the index. You will note that on Exhibit 494 the number is empty - there is no document number assigned to it. Apparently we just missed the number entirely during the course of presentation, so that is an empty document number, Your Honors.
I will give the Secretary General a file folder with the exhibit number and annotation "Not assigned" thereon, for his files.
The next document, Your Honor, which is the first one listed on page 4 of your index, is Document NO-1328, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 495, found on page 7690. This was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Brack. For further information concerning the document I believe it will be necessary to consult the cross examination, inasmuch as I myself am not too familiar with this particular document. This letter does, however, have the signature of the Defendant Brack appearing thereon.
The next document, Your Honors, is Document NO-2893, which is Prosecution Exhibit 496, which is found on Page 7700 of the transcript, was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Brack by Mr. Hachwald and is excerpts from a publication by Professor Binding and Hoche, regarding the authority to annihilate life, unworthy to live. As I recall, he introduced that at that a time to question the defendant concerning his attitude on the subject of euthanasia.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-2799, which is Prosecution Exhibit 497, which is found on page 7710 of the record and was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Brack. At that time Defense Counsel for Brack objected because of inadequate opportunity to cross examine the affiant, I believe. The objection was overruled at that time, as the Tribunal ruled that Froeschmann could apply for the witness if he deemed it necessary. This affidavit contains a jurat and is in proper order.
The next document is NO-2429, Prosecution Exhibit 498, will be found on page 7714 of the official record, and is an affidavit of one Gustav Claussen and found to contain the proper jurat and in good form, Your Honors.
This was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Brack.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-2908, which is Prosecution Exhibit 499, found on page 7721 of the official record, was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Brack, and on this document the original signature of one SS Gruppenfuehrer Koppe and one SS Gruppenfuehrer Sporrenberg appear.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-2909, which is Prosecution Exhibit 500, fund on page 7721 of the official transcript, was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Brack, and thereon appears the original signature of SS Gruppenfuehrer Rediess.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-2911, which is offered as Exhibit 501. Now, Your Honor might have some difficulty finding this ...
THE PRESIDENT: I do.
MR. HARDY: I note that Document NO-1461 should be NO-2911, so if you have a document that is .... it should be marked in pencil 2911. This is a letter to SS Gruppenfuehrer Welff, dated 22 February 1941, so that you will identify it properly for marking it, Your Honor. Do you find that discrepancy?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HARDY: I offer Document NO-2911 as Prosecution Exhibit 501; this is found on page 7722 of the record and was introduced during the cross examination of the Defendant Brack. This bears the original signature of SS Gruppenfuehrer Koppe, I believe.
The next document, Your Honor, is Document NO-2758, which is Prosecution Exhibit 502, which is found on page 7727 of the record, which was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Brack. You will recall, I believe, that the purpose of Dr. Hachwald having submitted this during the cross-examination of the Defendant Brack was to substantiate the chart which was drawn by the Defendant Brack, and this was some notes that he made prior to the drafting of the original chart that we have put into exhibit in, I believe, Document Book No. 1. Offhand I cannot recall the exact number of the original chart.
The next Document NO-3010, which is Prosecution Exhibit 503, which is found on page 7734 of the official transcript, was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Brack. You will find this is an affidavit in good form, containing a jurat and meeting the qualifications of the Tribunal.
The next document, Your Honor, is NO-2614, is offered as Exhibit No. 504, for convenience purposes. It is found on page 7735, and it is an extract from the transcript of the International Military Tribunal, duly authenticated by the Secretary General. That is 2614. That was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Brack, I believe.
The next document is another excerpt from the IMT Judgment, which is NO 2737, and is given Prosecution Exhibit No. 505, for convenience. It is found on page 7740 of the record, and also used during the cross-examination of the Defendant Brack.
The next document is No. 997, which is Prosecution Exhibit 506, which is found on Page 7740 of the official transcript, which was offered during the cross-examination of the Defendant Brack.
DR. FROESCHMANN: May I ask to see the original? Mr. President I object to this document because it has no signature of any recognizable person.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, if you will reserve your ruling on this objection until such time as I have been able to refer this to Dr. Hochwald. Unfortunately I am not in aposition to tell you where each and every document we have introduced came from, and I would like to have Dr. Hochwald inform me as to this document.
JUDGE SEBRING: Does it have a printed letterhead?
MR. HARDY: No, this is purely a carbon copy, Your Honor, and from what files it came I am unable to tell you. I will have to consult Dr. Hochwald.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you obtain that information from Dr. Hochwald during the afternoon recess?
MR. HARDY: I will call him up to argue the objection, Your Honor, and then we won't have to wait for it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess, and you can procure the doctor in the meantime.
(Thereupon a recess was taken).
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. NELTE: (Counsel for defendant Handloser.) Mr. President, I have heard that you objected to my handing in a document for translation yesterday. For clarification, I should like to remark that this was not a document which I could have offered in the case for Professor Handloser. I submitted all of these documents. The document which I gave for translation yesterday afternoon for a decision: the statement of Professor Reiter on his examination of 22 November 1946. I could not give this document to tho Translation Branch sooner, because I did not have the affidavit of Professor Reiter, which the Prosecution offered in Document Book 19. I ask you to take notice of this fact, and I also ask Mr. Hardy to make the statement concerning this document which he promised yesterday. I have given him the original.
MR. HARDY: Concerning that original document, Your Honor, I have had my clerks check the files to see whether or not we have received any such document from Professor Reiter while he was incarcerated here in the prison in Nurnberg. Unfortunately, I did not bring the document which Dr. Nelte gave to me, I will return it to him later, but my clerks have been unable to find receipt of any such document by the Prosecution.
DR. NELTE: Does that clarify the matter, Mr. President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, as far as you are concerned, Doctor, I understand.
MR. HARDY: If Your Honors please, on page 4 of the index of these documents which have been marked for identification, we now refer again to Document NO 997, which has been offered as Prosecution Exhibit 506, which is found on page 7740 of the transcript and was introduced during the cross-examination of the Defendant Brack, I believe Dr. Froeschmann has an objection. Mr. Hochwald of our office is here to argue the objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Dr. Froeschmann state his objection?
MR. HARDY: In addition to that, Your Honor, the next document on page 4, which is NO 365, which the prosecution offer as Exhibit NO 507, which was also introduced during the cross-examination of Brack, on page 7743, counsel also intends to object to that one, and Dr. Hochwald will handle both objections at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The counsel for Defendant Brack will state his objection.
DR. FROESCHMANN: (Counsel for Defendant Brack.) Mr. President, I object to these two documents. They are not signed, they are carbon copies of a letter which we never received, and it cannot be determined whether the original was written or by whom it was written, it is nothing but a piece of paper which was used for a carbon copy and on which there are words and sentences describing some incident. I don't believe I am too formalistic, but in view of the significance which the Prosecution attaches to this document, it might be advisable to determine who sent this letter out.
THE PRESIDENT: Please hand the original documents to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: While the Tribunal is perusing these documents, I might ask the Defense Counsel for Brack if he has any other documents concerning euthanasia that he intends to object to; I don't believe there are any others, but if he has any intention of further objections I wish he would make them now while Dr. Hochwald is here.
DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the defendant Brack): Just a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: These handwritten initials -- capital "N", period, small "d" period, capital "H", period, capital "M", period are simply written at the bottom of the first page. They do not, apparently, correspond, with any place for a signature. We will hear from Counsel for the Prosecution.
DR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honors, please, these two documents are captured documents from the files of the Ministry for the Eastern Territories. The initials which Your Honor just mentioned are indicating that this duplicate original, I do think 997 is a duplicate original, the other one, 365, is an original, were handed to the Minister for perusal. I do not know what the "N" means, but "f.d. H.M." is fuer den Herrn Minister", "for the Minister." It is obvious that these documents were written by someone -I do not know who it was -- to hand to the Minister for perusal. These documents are captured documents, and if they are not signed they are perfectly admissible into evidence, and are just duplicate originals of letters which were written.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, these were written but not necessarily sent; what do you think the probative value of these documents is and against whom?
DR. HOCHWALD: The probative value against the Defendant Brack is that he -- a conference is described in these two documents which took place in his presence, and he took part in this conference, and what was said and what was decided upon in this conference is described in these two documents. The Prosecution does not contend that this letter, NO-365, was sent to the Defendant Brack, but the but the document itself shows what in this conference was decided; and for this purpose, this document was put into evidence on the part of the Prosecution.
The file note, Document NO-997, is only supporting Document NO-365. Both documents refer, obviously, to the same conversation, or to the same conference which took place in the presence of the Defendant Brack. That Brack made suggestions for the extermination of the Jews is clear from the last sentence of Document NO-365, which says, "There are no objections against doing away with those Jews who are not able to work, with the Brack remedy." So, it is clear from this sentence that it was the suggestion of the Defendant Brack to exterminate these people by gas.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, one document also contains the express remark "draft". It is not even certain that the letter was ever written; an unknown person has drafted a letter with no signature and I do not believe that this is a document of any probative value which could be admitted into evidence. Both documents, as a matter of fact, say "draft".
DR. HOCHWALD: Your Honor, the Prosecution does not contend that letters of this kind were written. We think this draft was for the perusal of the Minister, who obviously wrote a letter os the same contents, but what we want to prove by this document is what was the subject of this conference in which the Defendant Brack took part and what was decided there. I want only to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that other documents, the Haagen documents, were put into evidence and admitted into evidence which have very much the same form and are very much of the same nature as these documents.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents apparently have some probative value in connection with the fact that a certain solution of what was called the "Jewish Problem" had been considered. Counsel for the Defendant Brack will be at liberty in his brief to argue that they have no probative value against his client. The Tribunal will then consider the probative value of the documents. The two documents will be admitted in evidence.