The "-- what is interpreted as -- "spray tank is to be used. The sprayed gers are to be caught on agar plates placed over a large area.
"Since it is not known under what conditions inhaled aerosols or dispersed droplets of certain pathogenic germs cause disease in man, Prof. Blome suggested experiments on human beings. Experimentation in the laboratories of the Academy of Military Medicine was rejected. The questions will be discussed again when Prof. Blome visits my laboratories in the Academy.
"Until 15 October 1943 the Army Medical Inspectorate is to report in writing on the field experiments to be made.
"Veterinary Inspectorate lacks interest in further field experiments since the August 1943 experiments with foot and mouth disease had furnished unequivocal results.
"The production of a Vaccine against rinderpest is not planned. If the enemy is to introduce rinderpest into Germany, only the veterinary precautions can be carried out.
"Military Science will undertake in October 1943 a field experiment with potato beetles near Speyer. The beetles will be dropped in a rigid state, so that they will not creep into the ground at once. Immediately after their release they will be collected. Furthermore, the behavior of the beetles at different heights, at changing temperatures, and with strong winds will be tested.
"The Japanese beetle will arrive from Japan in about four weeks; then the attempts at cultivation experiments will begin. A wheat parasite is to be imported from Rumania and Turkey, to be used for experiments in cultivation experiments. Experiments are also being planned with the antler moth, a butterfly, which is supposed to have destroyed 43,000 hectares of paster in a year. Next session on 24 November 1943. Signed Kliewe."
The Tribunal will see from this file memorandum which I have just read that the Association "Blitzerbeiter" was concerned with the problems arising in the field of bacteriological warfare. We find that the Army Medical Inspectorate is prominently represented on this commission.
Of course, the defendant Handloser was the Chief of the Army Medical Inspectorate at this time. He also see that the defendant Blome, who had received a bacterial warfare commission from the Reichsmarshal Goering, has suggested that experiments be made on human beings. We turn now to Document NO-1309. It is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 326 and under the same conditions that Prosecution Exhibit 325 has been accepted into evidence, namely, that the defense counsel shall have the right to raise seasonable objection to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: This exhibit will be received under the same conditions as these previously offered.
MR. McHANEY: This again is a memorandum signed by Kliewe, dated Berlin, 23 February 1944:
"Secret. Official Note."
"Subject: Concerning Conversation with Professor Blome on 23 February 1944.
"The Association "Blitzarbeiter" has had no meetings since 24 September 1943. In order to find out whether in the meantime additional experiments were made, I had an interview with Prof. Blome, who is also a member of the association. He discloses the following: The attempts at dropping potato beetles from airplanes met with favorable success. The beetles were dropped from a height of 8,000 m. and remained alive. Further experiments with plant parasites are being planned. He has until now made no experiments in the field of human medicine. These, however, are necessary, and he plans to make them. A new institute under his control is being built near Posen, in which biological weapons arc to be studied and tested. Field Marshal Keitel has given the permission to build; Reichsfuehrer - SS and Generalarzt Prof. Brandt have assured him of vast support. By request of Field Marshal Keitel, the Armed Forces are not to have a responsible share in the experiments, since experiments will also be conducted on human beings. Prof. Blome would like me to collaborate as adviser, since I have already made some preparations and since I am able to derive from the results the precautions necessary for the Armed Forces. Prof. Blome did not know that the Chief of the Medical Corps and the Inspector of Army Medical Service have repeatedly issued precautionary measures for the units. He asked for copies of these.
"Prof. Blome rightly rejects the Association "Blitzarbeiter" because it works too slowly and because the circle of participants is too large: for this reason secrecy cannot be guaranteed. In particular, Prof, Blome sees no obstacle in the employment of the Chemical Warfare Section of the Army Ordnance Office. Therefore, he wishes to make the suggestion to the Reichsmarshal and Generalarzt Professor Brandt, that the association be dissolved and he be permitted (not through the interposition of the Chemical Warfare Section of the Army Ordnance Office) to requisition airplanes for experimental purposes directly from the Air Force Ministry.
As a matter of fact, the Ordnance Office has so far been only an impediment in this respect. As early as 5 April 1943, the Chief of the Medical Corps informed Chemical Warfare Section of Army Ordnance Office what experiments will be necessary for the estimate of precautionary measures. So far no action has been taken with respect to the suggestions. In several documents and in the conferences with the armed Forces, Operations Staff, it was continually pointed out that the Chemical Warfare Section of Army Ordnance Office was working too slowly, whereas the enemy was working most industriously in this field. Professor Blome is of the opinion (as are nowadays other bacteriologists and biologists) that biological weapons (plant parasites activators of human and animal diseases) can become a very serious hazard to us. Therefore this field must be examined more extensively and intensively than before. Especially necessary is an examination of our vaccine, the pestilential virus (plague) vaccine in particular. Experiments must accordingly be made on human beings. Furthermore certain misconceptions concerning the effect of maximum doses of several poisons can be corrected only by experiments on human beings. As soon as Prof. Blome has conferred with the Reichsmarshal and Generalarzt Prof. Brandt, he will notify me.
"In conclusion, Prof. Blome asked if the Chief of the Medical Corps or the Inspector of Army Medical Service are aware of the fact that 4,000 cases of pestilence (plague) have appeared in the European part of Turkey; he received this information from a representative of the I.G. Farben Industry. He has no further information on the subject. (Note: Oberfeldarzt Packert has heard something about it, but as far as he knows the rumor was not confirmed.)" (Signed) Kliewe.
Here we find that not only is the defendant Blome concerned with human experimentation with bacteriological weapons, but also the Reichs Fuehrer SS Himmler and that gentleman in the dock, who professes he was just theoretically an SS man, Karl Brandt, has assured Blome of first support. I would suppose that there were a number of reasons why Professor Karl Brandt was sought for support in this matter.
First, he was at this time the Reichs Commissioner for Health and Medical matters. He had also, I think, by this time received his commission from the Reichs Marshal concerning chemical warfare, which the Tribunal will recall was concerned among other things with lost gas experiments on human beings. It is interesting to note that in February of 1944, by request of no less a man than Field Marshal Keitel, the armed forces would not participate in these proposed experiments, since experiments were also being conducted on human beings. Now, how, in the face of that perhaps self-saving declaration on the part of Keitel, defendant in case number one before the International Military Tribunal, can any of the men in the present dock say "No, we stood on too high a place to know of these matters of experimentation on human beings".
I say again that Field Marshal Keitel was informed and well know that medical experiments had been made on human beings and at least at this somewhat late date, when the military prospects for the German Wehrmacht were not so good, Keitel showed some squeamishness at the participation of the armed forces in medical experiments. So, I take it that the defense on the part of such people as Karl Brandt, Handloser, Rostoff and Schroeder that they did not know such things were going on cannot be true.
We also see at a little later point in the same memorandum of February 23, 1944 that Blome wishes to make the suggestion to the Reichs Marshal and Generalarzt Professor Brandt that the Association, "Blitzarbeiter" be dissolved and no, Blome, be permitted to requisition airplanes for experimental purposes. Again we see the important position of the Defendant Karl Brandt.
The few sentences at the bottom of the first page of this Document are quite interesting, particularly in view of the next Document where it says; "Furthermore, certain misconceptions concerning the effect of maximum doses of several poisons can be corrected only by experiments on human beings. As soon as Prof. Blome has conferred with the Reichsmarshal and Generalarzt Prof.
Brandt, he will notify me."
It does not take a very vivid imagination to see that they were all concerned with the use of poisons by enemy agents and saboteurs and Blome insists that since we have a misconception concerning the effect of these poisons, we have to experiment on human beings and that no great issue will be made if they sought out volunteers who would be willing to have themselves poisoned so they could determine the effect of maximum doses, as they put it. In connection with this problem, we also see the name of Karl Brandt mentioned in association with no less a person than Reichs Marshal Goering.
I move on to the second page of this Document, which is another memorandum this ti e initialed by one "RS". It is dated 22 may 1944, headed "Top Secret, Army Medical Inspectorate no. 131/44. It is from the "Stabsarzt Prof. Kliewe, Military Medical Academy, Berlin, Regarding: Report of Activities:
"It has been learned from the various reports of our agents that England believes Germany is preparing for bacteriological warfare on a large scale. England furthermore believe that reprisal consists in the application of bacteria and their poisons. Therefore, England desires knowledge of the type and of the scope of 'bacteriological operations' in military circles. England wants to know the types of bacteria with which we work and the vaccines we produces on a large scale. From a Conference of American and Russian scientists in Caire in September 1943 it is also to be gathered that the enemy powers are continuing to prepare for bacteriological warfare. Therefore, our defensive and protective measures have been treated in more detail. Speeches about the necessary protective and defensive measures have been made before new division surgeons and at the advisory conference at Hohenlychen. Furthermore, a nebulizer with motor-drive has been built which sterilizes and disinfects the air in the room. The apparatus can also be used simultaneously for purpose of decontamination. As soon as the various experiments have been completed, the Apparatus will be demonstrated to the association."
He see from this document that Professor Kliewe was (Connected with the Military Medical Academy which was under too control of the Defendant Handloser, We also see that speeches and reports were given at the advisory conferences at Hohenlychen, and, as the Tribunal will recall, we have heretofore introduced proof of the fourth meeting of the Military Medical academy which was held, as I recall, some time in May 1944 at Hohenlychen. You will remember that we submitted a rather long list, of names of various persons who attended that meeting. This document indicates that they made some reports on bacteriological warfare measures at the meeting at Hohenlychen. The next part of this exhibit reads as follows:
"Association, 24 May 1944.
"(1) Colonel Hirsch states that the last session of 24 November 1943 was canceled because of an air raid. He refers to directive, according to which the Army High Command wants to receive a comprehensive report 15 August and 15 October by Army Ordnance and that Chief of Medical Corps, Veterinary Inspector, and Military Science must previously submit interim reports to the Association. These interim reports have not been submitted to date; it is hereby ordered that they be submitted to the Association without delay, during the week after Whitsunside at the latest. In the future the semi-annual dates will be 10 April and 10 October, so that the final report can be turned in to the High Command on the date duo.
"(2) Professor Blome suggests that Colonel Deist, Graduate Engineer, Chief of the bureau for development in the Technical Bureau of the Reich minister for armament and war Production, be admitted into the association because that office must be informed about the field of our experimental. Colonel Hirsh orders a request from Army High Command accordingly.
"Department 1:
"Because for the absence of the specialist the questions about the progress the research must be handled through official channels. Professor Blome will report on Ms intended protective measures and research.
"Department 2:
"Stabsveterinar Dr. Nagel informs us that the liquid preparations for foot and mouth disease mentioned in the last comprehensive report has already been surpassed, so that the problem of storing it is of no further interest to us. We have been successful in developing a dry preparation which can still be effective in a 1 to 10,000 dilution. Terrain experiments even on a small scale are not being planned at the moment; they are connected with great risks because of the danger from the air. Chemical warfare of Army Ordnance considers control experiments with finely powdered, diluted dry-preparation advisable. There is a plan, depending on the consent of Veterinary Inspector to conduct these experiments on the bacteria field East.
"The representative of the Reich Marshal, Professor Blome, informs us that the work on the development of a vaccine for disease (rinderpost; Ruhr-dysentery"--question mark by translator-"are in progress."
"Department 3;
"Regierungsrat Dr. Bayer: Research on the dangers of the turnip weevil, the turnip bug, and the antler, gives no clear results as yet. The experiments on patato stalk rot and potato tuber decay have been postponed. Experiments with Septoria tritici have been negative so far; on the other hand, blight seems particularly dangerous and will be tested more intensively.
"The experiments on the danger involved in introducing woods are still in an initial state.
"In general the wish has been expressed to would the defense upon the food situation and the state of disease in England. The necessary steps will be taken.
"Chemical Warfare of Army Ordnance reports that the bomb AC 50AB developed jointly with General Air Material CE 7, has already shown splendid results."
We turn now to Document Number No 641 which will be Prosecution's Exhibit 327. Again, I am not sure, and rather think, that the defense counsel has not received the German copy of this and consequently it is offered subject to objection taken by the Defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: The document Trill bo received under the same objection as the last.
MR. McHANEY: Has the Tribunal received a copy of the translation? 641- this is document number NO 641 which will be Prosecution's Exhibit 327. The first page is simply a facing sheet with the name of Professor Blome on it. The second page of the document is a teletype to SS Standartenfuehrer Dr. Brandt. That is Rudolf Brandt, dated, August 18, 19 1944:
"Professor Blome requests an appointment with the Reichsfuehrer -SS in order to make a report, after 23 August 1944, since various data cannot be made available before that time. Items to be reported:
"(1) Use of noxious insects by the enemy.
"(2) Spreading of Colorado Beetles by the enemy.
"(3) Poison experiments in connection with the report of 21 July made to Reichsfuehrer-SS, Professor Blome is urged again to test the poison immediately.
"Professor Blome desires my participation but I am summoned to Gauleiter Hofer for August 24."
Page 3 of this indicates that this document was sent by Sievers, but I would like to sec the original before. (The original was shown to Mr. HcHaney) Yes, I think that is Sievers, SS Standartenfuehrer. It is rather an interesting point about this document, item No. 3, poison experiments in connection with the report of 21 July made to the Reichsfuehrer. Professor Blome is urged again to test the poison immediately. It appears that certain poison experiments have been carried out by the Defendant Blome on which he was to make a report to the Reichsfuehrer, and referring back in that connection to the previous exhibit 326 where I stressed to the Tribunal that part of Kliewe's memorandum on 23 February 1944 in which he states that since:
"Furthermore, certain misconceptions concerning the effect of maximum doses of several poisons can be corrected only by experiments on human beings" And I suggest to the Tribunal that those experiments were in fact carried out after 23 February 1944, and that Prosecution's Exhibit 327 indicates that the Defendant Blome is to make a report on these poison experiments.
I would now like to offer for judicial notice by the Tribunal an excerpt from the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal, and this excerpt is taken from page 16, 891 of the official English Transcript. This excerpt reads as follows:
"Soviet prisoners of war wore also made the subject of medical experiments of the most cruel and inhuman kind. In July 1941 experimental work was begun in preparation for a campaign of bacteriological warfare; Soviet prisoners of war were used in these medical experiments, which more often than not proved fatal."
If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution has not supplied a German copy of this excerpt to the Defense Counsel, and I take it that it is not necessary nor required by the rules. I would do so normally. However, this has been gotten together rather hurriedly. I take it then that no prejudice has been done by tine Prosecution by not having submitt ed it to then.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defense Counsel would be entitled to receive a copy of the extract from the record of the International Military Tribunal, or other natters of which This Tribunal is required to take judicial notice.
MR. McHANEY: We thus see that the International Military Tribunal in its judgment, has made a finding of fact; that bacteriological warfare experiments were carried out on Soviet prisoners of war, and that some of them proved fatal. We submit that the defendant Blome was very vitally concerned and connected with the bacteriological warfare experiments, and is therefore affected by this finding.
I would like to present into evidence two additional documents on the proof of the Euthanasia Experiments. First of these is Document No. 1063. This is a very long and comprehensive report made by the Bureau of Investigation of War Crimes at Amsterdam.
DR. SEIDL: (For the defendants Fischer, Gebhardt, and Oberheuser). The Prosecution intends to submit Document No. 1063 in evidence. I object to the admission of this evidence. It is true that Article 9 of Ordinance No. 7, of the Military Government, which is competent for this Tribunal, facilitates the admissibility of certain documents. This Ordinance speaks of depositions and decisions of military and other courts of the Allied Nations. This is not such a report. I speak further of the courts of investigating commissions of the United Nations for War Crimes. It must be investigated whether Document No. 1063 observes the conditions of Article 9 of Ordinance No. 7. I assert this is not the case. This Document is nothing but a compilation of letters and records of interrogations by police officials, and similar documents. Referring to the first letter dated 26 November 1945, this is obviously a letter addressed to the Minister of Justice of the Netherlands, and at the end of this letter it says;"I am at all times ready to swear to this testimony." It is, therefore, apparent that the report was not sworn. This document I cite only as an example. It contains no other information that the report of this letter was prepared in the presence of an official of the War Crimes Commission. The document can be called a compilation of rocords of the most various sorts, but one cannot say that this is an official report of an Investigating Commission for War Crimes for the United Nations.
I, therefore, request that this document not be admitted in evidence.
MR. McHANEY: In order not to confuse the argument, I would like to ignore the remarks made by the defense counsel as to the contents of this report. It is immaterial as to what the form of the report may be or its contents. The question is: whether or not it is admissible in evidence or whether it is entitled to be judicially noticed by the Tribunal. Article 9 of Ordinance No. 7 states that the Tribunal shall always take judicial notice of official Governmental documents and reports of the United Motions, including the acts and documents of committees set up in the various Allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and the records and findings of a military or other tribunal. It is, however, the acts and documents of a committee set up in one of the Allied countries; namely, that of the Netherlands, and each page of this document, the original of which is in Dutch, bears the official stamp of this committee. It is quite apparent that it is a report of an official committee set up in the Netherlands, and it represents a very painstaking and prolonged investigation. And, contrary to what the defense counsel has said, I think that this report includes verbatim extracts from statements taken from witnesses rather heightens the probative value of the document itself, rather than detracts from its admissibility. A great number of these reports made by investigating commissions are nothing more than a running account of the conclusions of Investigating commissions, but here the Tribunal is provided with these facts and statements upon which the committee bases its report. The Prosecution is not concerned as to whether this document be accepted as an exhibit. We would prefer it that way because it then gets an exhibit number, and is more easily identifiable in the record, and that the Tribunal take judicial notice of it as required by Article 9 of Ordinance No. 7. We have no intention cf reading this very long report into the record We simply include it with the thought that it might be of some assistance to the Tribunal in looking over and determining the extensive scope cf the medical experimentations on human beings, and this report covers seven different concentration camps.
I would like to pass up to tin Tribunal the original document.
(The document was delivered to the Tribunal.)
DR. SEIDL: I should like to make the following statement in regard to the Prosecution's argument: Article 9 cf Ordinance No. 7 speaks of reports of investigating commissions for the United Nations for War Crimes, according to the interpretation of that, I understand it to mean reports and net just the reproduction of police investigation records or of letters or similar document. A report means the summary and evaluation of the investigating commission set up to investigate these crimes. The heading of this document, Document No. 1063, reads as follows: "That in this case, at least, there is no report, no evaluation of the results of the investigation."
In the trial before the International Military Tribunal reports of such investigating commissions were accepted; but they were not merely a compilation of police records or of letters to the authorities. They were always the result of an independent investigation of the commission concerned, which, similar to the activity of a court, had evaluated the material presented and had investigated it to determine to what extent this material had evidential value. There is no question of such an evaluation in this report. As the heading alone shows, it is only a compilation of Individual documents of police investigation records, of letters to the Ministry of Justice, without any investigation having been made as to whether the individual documents really came from the persons concerned and without the commissions' having evaluated the value of the material.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has had no opportunity to investigate this document. Does it contain statements concerning the defendants in this proceeding?
MR. McHANEY: Yes, a number of the facts reported in here concerned experiments with which we have dealt in this case. Other statements go beyond that and concern other matters which we have not here specifically touched upon.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal Number 1 will recess for a short time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Concerning the exhibit that was offered by the prosecution, the Netherlands' exhibit, the Tribunal having had insufficient time to have examined this exhibit, will reserve its ruling upon it's admissibility.
MR. MCHANEY: The prosecution would now like to offer NO-444.
THE PRESIDENT: Here's the original exhibit.
MR. MCHANEY: As Prosecution Exhibit 328. The report by the Netherlands was offered as 328 but since the Court --it might be, if the Tribunal please,-- it might be bettor to preserve that number after being offered as Prosecution Exhibit 328 pending the ruling of the Tribunal on its admissibility.
THE PRESIDENT: That's correct. The offered exhibit will be marked Prosecution Exhibit 328.
MR. MCHANEY: Document NO-444, will therefore, be Prosecution Exhibit 329. This is another affidavit by the defendant Rudolf Brandt. I might that this is being offered provisionally until such time the certificate of General Taylor is furnished to the Tribunal with respect to the right of Walter Rapp to administer an oath. The affidavit reads as follows:
"I, Rudolf Brandt, being duly sworn, depost and state:
"1. I have heretofore given affidavits concerning low-pressure, freezing, seawater, spotted fever, sterilization, lost and jaundice experiments. As I have stated, these experiments were conducted on concentration camp inmates.
"2. Before an experiment could be conducted on inmates of a concentration camp, Himmler's permission had to bo secured. Himmler was very much interested in medical matters, and it was easy for the physicians concerned to obtain his permission. This was particularly the case if it seemed that the experiment concerned might aid the war effort.
"3. Prisoners to be experimented on were selected by Oswald Pohl, Chief of the Economic and Administration Main Office. (WVHA) Unless he did it himself, Himmler used to order me to inform Pohl that a certain number of prisoners should be kept ready for a particular experiment. The people to be experiments on were generally earmarked by Himmler --for instance, Jews, Gypsies, Poles or criminals condemned to death.
The individuals to be used were selected at the camp out of the groups specified beforehand by Himmler. Later on Himmler no longer ordered that only volunteers condemned to death were to be used, and it is quite obvious that concentration camp inmates normally did not volunteer for the said purpose. They simply were selected and experiments on without asking their consent. The physicians and other persons involved in these experiments appealed to Himmler since it was impossible to get volunteers. No one involved in these experiments could fairly believe that only persons volunteering for that purpose were used.
"4. In some cases prisoners condemned to death were used for these experiments, but not always. In the course of the low pressure and freezing experiments Himmler order the death sentence to be commuted to imprisonment for life for those who should survive the experiments. This directive, however, did not apply to Poles, Russians and Jews. Prisoners of several nationalities were used for the experiments. Usually non-German nationals were used because of Himmler's racial theories.
"5. A number of people close to Himmler were well informed of these experiments. Karl Brandt, Grawitz and Gebhardt were consulted on this matter by Himmler. The aforementioned were members of the SS-Gruppenfuehrer Corps, and often the experiments were topics of discussion in private talks at Gruppenfuehrer meetings. Such a fundamental matter as were they experiments on human beings simply could not go on at all, without the men knowing of it and taking a position with respect to it. Mrugowsky and Poppendick both members of Grawitz' office, as well as Sievers, were as familiar with these experiments as I was by virtue of the orders I received. Kurt Blome, in his capacity of deputy to Conti must have been as well informed as Conti himself. High-ranking representatives of the Luftwaffe, the Army, and the Navy Were also involved in this affair, because many of the experiments were conducted on behalf of the Wehrmacht, Hippke, Schroeder, and Milch certainly did know about the low-pressure, freezing and sea-water experi ments as well as the experiments conducted by Haagen at Natzweiler.
It would not be sticking to the truth if one were to say that these experiments were exclusively an affair of the SS. Signed Rudolf Brandt."
MR. MCHANEY: This affidavit, of course, sums up in a few words what has become so abundantly apparent from the proof heretofore submitted to this Tribunal.
The Prosecution will have occasion, I think, before we finally rest our case in chief to present perhaps a few additional documents concerning medical experimentation. However, at this time we turn to a somewhat different phase of the case and that is the so-called "euthenasia program" carried out in Germany between the summer of 1939 and the end of the war.
DR. PELCKMANN: Mr. President, The Prosecution has no objection to my interrupting this presentation briefly at this moment with a question concerning the statements of defense counsel. I have already yesterday made a written request to the Tribunal with regard to this question which will be unknown at this time to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has in the meantime announced after the noon recess that a postponement will take place after the conclusion of the presentation by the Prosecution. Now, as the Tribunal has suggested, the defense will consult each other about their procedure to be followed. However, for the preparation of this discussion I would request that two additional points be clarified at this time:
First: For how long will the postponement last?
Let us take an example: If as the Prosecution has planned it will conclude it's presentation on the coming Thursday, that will be the 17th, and we should have an additional ten days for our preparation, and the recess would be over on the 27th. If we have understood the Tribunal correctly, with this limitation of time, then one more question remains open:
What will happen if up until the 27th of January the defense has been unable to contact the witnesses which it has called. No decision has been reached yet about the interrogation of witnesses by the defense, and as far as I know not a single witness for the defense has arrived in the meantime in Nurnberg. I recognize the difficulties which exist in order to bring these witnesses here until the end of this ti e limit which will be the 27th. However, on the other hand, I request that the following be considered:
If I am supposed to develop the theory of my defense, that is, if I am to state in brief words what I want to prove in order to disclaim the allegations by the Prosecution, then I must know if I am actually in a position to prove this. However, I can only know that if I can previously talk to the witnesses whom my client has requested to appear in his defense. I am afraid that this will not be possible by the 27th of January. I have, therefore taken it upon myself to suggest, that the opening speech, and in this case I am only speaking of the client whom I represent, that I will only want it for my client at the beginning of my presentation of evidence. I assume that up to that time more days and weeks will pass, and the dame thing will apply to the defense counsel whose turn comes later and they will be able to make their opening statement and to also prepare their evidence properly. I believe that this should be suggested in order to get out of this calamity, and may I point out in conclusion, that also the Prosecution when it made it's opening speech already had the documents available upon which it was based and also on the basis of interrogations which had taken place in the pre-trial procedure, and believed that it would bo certainly able to actually prove that which it had claimed.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I am not sure I got the suggestion of Dr. Pelchmann. If I understand it correctly he is asking that the Tribunal permit each defense counsel to make his opening statement and then present his evidence, instead of each of the nineteen defense counsel making something in the nature of an opening statement on two days, or however much time is allowed to them for that. Is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: It is correct.
Mr. McHANEY: I don't know that I am prepared at this time to express a general opinion on this subject. It would inconvenience the Prosecution to the extent that we would not be advised of the nature of the defense being put up by each defendant until immediately before he began the presentation of evidence. In other words, we have gotten nothing in the way of a bill of particulars, nor have we been advised, as the defendants themselves were, by the indictment as giving information about what their defense will be.