Q Dr. Wentzensen, before you proceed with a discussion of the Jansen case, may I put before you the record in that case?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King.
MR. KING: Yes?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it likely that the transcript shows the answer to my question, but I should like, if I may, for our convenience, to have stated at this time just what the position of Letz was when this conversation occurred with the witness. Will you inquire about that matter, please?
BY MR. KING:
Q . Dr. Wentzensen, did you hear the question addressed to us by the Bench?
A Yes, I understand the question.
Q Can you give us an answer, please?
AAt that time Hamburg still had its own Administration of Justice. Its Chief was Dr. Rothenberger, and at that time the Personnel Referent was Dr. Letz, whose name I have just mentioned.
MR. KING: Before we proceed with your discussion of the Jansen case, Dr. Wentzensen, may I say that the Jansen case is identified by the number NG-2410, and the original of that is before the witness at this time. I do no, unfortunately, have German copies for distribution of that. We do have them in English, and I should be glad to furnish copies to the Bench, although, at the same time, I am sorry that I cannot supply copies to the Defense, unless perhaps they can read English.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number, 2410?
MR. KING: No. 2410, and the next exhibit number will be reserved for that -
THE PRESIDENT: No. 596.
MR. KING: No. 596.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Wentzensen, you have before you-
A Yes, I have the files before me.
Q Do you concur in my summary of it that it is the record of the Jansen case?
A Yes, I agree with you.
Q Now, I do intend to offer this case in evidence, Dr. Wentzensen, but I would like to have you tell the Court in your own words, as briefly as possible, the facts of the case and how you were involved in it.
AAt that time I also acted as a judge at the Summary Court. As a Summary Court Judge I had to deal with all those cases where no formal indictment was filed, which were brought before my court without such indictment. One day the prosecution brought the Jansen case to the attention of my court. It was also called the Schlueter case, and the prosecution asked me to deal with it in summary proceeding. I thereupon fixed the final date, and the case turned out to be a very comprehensive one. As far as I remember, the facts of the case were as follows:
Jansen had had previous convictions. In 1332 he vfas sentenced to seven years in a penitentiary for having, together with some accomplices, who wore fellow members of the SA murdered a member of the City Council, Henning, in a bus near Hamburg. Jansen had only served two years of that sentence; he was released after the so-called seizure of power; the amnesty probably also applied to him. He became an SA Sturmfuehrer.
That much about the previous history and personality of this man Jansen. On New Year's eve -- that was on the turn of 1934-1335-- a restaurant to celebrate the new year. He there met a man called Gralka. In former days he and that man had worked together for the police in Hamburg. Jansen had been thrown out of the police force because of his drunkenness, and ever since that time he hated the other man, Gralka. On that New Year's eve he told his SA men to assault Gralka. They hit him in the face, they hit his eyes, and they injured him.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Further ill treatments were not inflicted on Gralka only because he managed to escape. The trial lasted for four days, I don't think I need describe the details. The outcome, as one can see from this document, was that Jansen was Convicted for dangerous bodily injury committed together with other people and inciting other people to inflict such injuries and he was sentenced to a prison term of six months and two weeks. Another two co-defendants were sentenced to three weeks and two months imprisonment.
Q Now, taking up from there, after the sentence against Jansen and his colleagues was handed down, did Dr. Rothenberger get in touch with you about the case?
A Dr. Rothenberger asked for me. He reproached me gravely on account of this matter, and particularly he charged me with having, not only by this trial, but by the way I conducted trials, wrecked the good relationship which were just beginning to develop between the Reichstatthalter and the administration of justice. We had a very unpleasant argument and in the course of that argument I made reference to the fact that the independence of the judge was guaranteed in the constitution, but Dr. Rothenberger thereupon told me that I was speaking in favor of legal positivism. He also said that I was not the right person to administer National Socialist penal law and that there he would order my transfer to the civil cases. That happened; however, it was only done when business was redistributed and as I said already at the beginning of this examination, at the end of 1935 I left the administration of penal justice where I was not employed again, until the beginning of the war.
Q Now, Dr. Wentzensen, the subsequent happening in the Jansen case is another story which other witnesses are going to refer to but can you tell us just briefly what you know of the subsequent course of the case Jansen?
A I heard of it at the time, only through conversations -- that is to say, I didn't hear of it officially. In the second instance, at Court No. III, Case No. 3.the second hearing, the case was dropped because the offense was only a trifle, and the main defendant Jansen paid a fine, -- I believe it was a hundred marks, -- which he gave it to a charitable fund.
Q Yes. As I said, Dr. Wentzensen, we are going to have further evidence on this and I shall not ask you to go into detail about which you personally do not know about; with the exception of introducing two documents, 595 and 596 in evidence, the prosecution has no more questions to put at this time.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, may I first ask a question? Mr. King intends to produce further evidence in connection with the Jansen case. For my cross-examination, I must know more about this document. We don't have it yet in the German language. My question therefore is whether I could postpone my cross-examination so that I can first read this document in the German translation, and in order not to waste time we could first examine Dr. Waldow. I believe he is outside. Anyhow, before I conduct my cross-examination, I should like to see the German translation of this document and, therefore, I would ask Mr. King whether he has any objections?
THE PRESIDENT: When can you have the German translation?
MR. KING: I think it will be some little time even though it is in a state of processing now. I would suggest that Dr. Wandschneider take the original which I think for bis purposes would be even better then the mimeographed copy. There is, however, a very practical reason why I think we should not ask the witness to remain indefinitely in Nurnberg pending a cross-examination. The witness is a judge, an active judge in a court in Hamburg, has come here leaving his cases and naturally is anxious to return. We should like to do all we can to help him in that objective.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest, if it meets with the approval of Counsel, that all of the cross-examination be had this afternoon with the exception of this untranslated document and that Dr. Wandschneider be accorded the privilege of examining after Court has recessed the Court No. III, Case No. 3.original this evening -- I am sure that the original will be in safe hands -- and that the cross-examination as to that document proceed tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
MR. KING: I am certainly agreeable to that suggestion, your Honor, if Dr. Wandschneider is.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, in connection with the Buhk case, you told us that it was by mistake that that case or rather those files reached the prosecution. How was it that they reached the prosecution by mistake?
Q Counsel, what I said was that Senior Public Prosecutor Reuter told me that it was evidently a mistake that those files had come to him. Obviously, they hadn't been meant for him. He didn't tell me why and I didn't ask him why.
Q Is it correct that at that time the position of the Gestapo was such that it didn't want to hand such events over to the jurisdiction of the German administration of justice?
A May I ask you to repeat that question, please.
Q Witness, I asked you if it is correct that at that time it was the custom of the Gestapo normally not to allow the administration of justice to get possession of such files, because already at that time the Gestapo had arrogated to itself a special position?
A The only way I can answer the question is that these were the first files of that type which were passed on to me. Whether other departments received such files I naturally cannot tell you.
Q You were present when the autopsy was performed, were you?
A Yes, I thought it was right for me to attend the autopsy myself although I could have passed on those files to another department, but the case seemed so significant to me that once I had started it and once I had come to know how difficult it was to get hold of that corpse at all, I didn't want to pass the case onto another department.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q The facts that were established beyond all doubt at the autopsy -- that is, according to your opinion and testimony today -- that there had been serious ill treatment?
A Yes, that is certain, but as I see from the files -- that is to say, from the expert opinion of official physician -- it was found that probably death had occurred due to handing. On page 218 it says in the expert opinion, figure 1, "the autopsy revealed that probably Buhk died as the result of hanging".
Q Well, it was that very passage which I wish to discuss with you, witness. If one reads that with quite an open mind, do you think that one then has to assume that this was a case of suicide or how else could you interpret the wording?
A This phrase quite definitely leaves open both possibilities. I mean the possibility of suicide and the possibility of murder.
Q Did the physician Dr. Koppmann quite intentionally wish to leave open both alternatives?
A No, he definitely didn't want to do that. That was not his job.
Q I believe you misunderstood my question. What I asked you was whether Dr. Koppmann quite intentionally left open both possibilities -that is to say the possibility that suicide had been committed by hanging or that this was a simulated suicide?
A I am so sorry I misunderstood your question the first time. Dr. Koppmann, as official physician, merely had to determine what was the cause of death. As to further evaluation of the cause, that was not his job, and that in itself should answer the question whether he intentionally left open both alternatives.
Q. You discussed the case with Dr. Letz and you told us that Dr. Letz found the discussion of that case highly embarrassing. Can you tell us why you think Dr. Letz found it embarassing or do you merely have a general impression?
A. As I told this Court before in detail, that definitely was my concrete impression. I told this Court that both from the point of view of the actual facts and from the personal point of view he found that conversation embarrassing.
Q. Then I understand, you to mean that actually he shared your view both from the personal point of view and from the facts. Is that not correct?
A. I almost thought so.
Q. If, formally and from the point of view of the actual facts, he almost shared your opinion, what then was the criticism he made of your attitude?
A. The criticism he offered was on the one hand that he said the courts, were on principle not to deal with events that occurred in the concentration camps, and on the other hand, he said to me that it was necessary for us to have understanding for the great events of the time. As one says in German, just for once you will have to let five by an even number.
Q. That is not the words he used, is it?
A. No, that was my version, but I felt that he really was not talking according to his true inner conviction, and when I testified here before I gave my reasons for gaining that impression.
Q. Did you find in your contacts with Letz that he was servile to the Gestapo, the SS?
A. Dr. Letz's character, his person, I think one must describe as tragic. He was very much interested in cultural activities. He belonged to the circle around Judge Russ who unfortunately died during the war. That is to say, he was killed in active service. Judge Russ was a Social Democrat.
He was the son of the mayor, the Social Democratic mayor, and through Russ, with whom I shared my office, I heard a great deal about Letz and I also discussed Letz with him. And, as I said here before, I had known Dr. Letz for many years. We first met at school, In 1922 I was a Referendar under him. He was an untiring worker, but he was unfree and he was subject to torturing himself.
Q. And you think that the situation of that time increased that with him?
A. Yes, one can put it that way.
Q. Now I am coming to my last question. You said that had been an entirely novel occurrence in the Hamburg Administration of Justice, that you were asked to call at the offices of the Administration of Justice. Am I correct in assuming that you want to say that up until that time you had had almost none or no personal experience of judges being called before the Administration of Justice to account for their sentences or for the actions they had taken as judges?
A. That was my conviction at that time. As far as I know, that was the first time that the Chief or his Deputy asked judges to see him on account of their actions as a judge, and Dr. Letz was the Deputy, of course.
Q. Do you know that relations between Dr. Letz and Dr. Rothenberger were extremely friendly and that Dr. Rothenberger tried very hard to get Dr. Letz into the Administration of Justice?
A. I cannot tell you for certain, but perhaps I can answer your question to this effect: On the basis of my friendship with Dr. Letz, later on, after that incident, I once asked him how he was and I meant how he was from the professional point of view, and I remember his very depressed answer very well. He said, "Do you think it is nice to be an adjutant?"
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Did Letz----no, that is beyond the scope of my question. I think I will finish this subject but, of course, I'd like to reserve the right to discuss the Jansen case later.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so tomorrow morning and you may examine the original this afternoon.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. KING: No redirect, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty. Return at nine-thirty tomorrow morning, witness.
(Witness excused)
MR. KING: The Prosecution calls at this time Judge Waldow of Hamburg.
ERICH LOTHAR CHRISTIAN WALDOW, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Q. Will you state for the Court your full name and your present position in Hamburg?
A. My name is Erich Lothar Christian Waldow. I was born on the 26 of March 1887 in Hamburg. I am Oberlandgerichtsrat for the District Court of Appeal in Hamburg.
Q. Can you give us a brief summary of your official duties, I mean your official positions held throughout your career in Hamburg?
A. I graduated in 1905. From 1906 to 1909 I studied Law. In 1909 I passed my Referendar examination. In 1913 I passed my assessor examination. In 1917 I was appointed Landreichter District Court Judge in Hamvurg, and until the Autumn of 1945 I remained Landrichter or Landgerishtsrat; District Court Judge.
Since the Autumn of 1945 I have been an Oberlandgerichtsrat counsellor at the District Court of Appeal. I work at the Penal Senate of the Hanseatic Court of Appeals.
Q. You were at one time presiding judge of Chamber 4, were you not?
A. I was the presiding judge of the small Penal Chamber No. 4.
Q. And do you recall while you were presiding judge at this Chamber; that the Jansen case came on for further proceedings before you? This was a case which had been decided in the lower courts by Judge Wentzensen. Do you recall that that case came before you for assignment for further proceedings?
A. I remember that I dealt with the Jansen case because it came before my chamber for appeal.
Q. Yes. Now, when this case came before you for appeal, did you assign a date for hearing?
A. I set a trial date, yes.
Q. And to participate in the trial were; of course; the defendants and certain other high Party officials; is that right?
A. No. The defendants would have had to attend; but the presence of high Party functionaries would no have been necessary.
Q. Yes. Well, in any event, when the date for the firsts trial which you set came, what happened? Was the trial actually held?
A. No. The defense counsel told us that he and the defendant would not be able to appear because they were prevented. I believe the reason why they wore prevented was because they had to attend the Reich Party rally.
Q. In Nurnberg?
A. Yes, I believe in Nurnberg.
Q. And after that what happened? Did you set another trial date?
A. Yes, That date had to be postponed and I set another date.
Q. And what happened at the second trial date which you set?
A. Sometime before that second date the prosecution office asked to see the files.
Q. The prosecution asked to see the files?
A. Yes. The prosecution asked for the files.
q. To see them or to remove them from the court?
A. They wanted to see them.
Q. Did you grant them permission?
A. Under the Penal Code of procedure I had to hand them over, because the prosecution is entitled to see the files.
Q. And did they remove the files from your jurisdiction?
A. The files didn't come back to me in time for that second trial date.
Q. Were you told where they were when you inquired?
A. At first I wasn't told. I rang up Drescher, the General Public Prosecutor, and them I heard what had happened.
Q. What was that, please?
A. General Public Prosecutor Drescher told me that he had passed on the files to Reichstatthalter Kauffmann who had taken them away with him on a trip.
Q. And because Gauleiter Kauffmann had the files on the second trial date which you had set you could not proceed with the case; is that right?
A. That is right. Again I couldn't try the case.
Q. And what did Drescher tell you when you complained about that situation? What did he toll you to do?
A. He advised me to spend my time going for a walk.
Q. How while the Jensen case, was pending before you, did anyone ask you to quash the proceedings against Jansen?
A. Yes, my superior Schmitt, the President of the District Court, did that.
Q. Now let me see. Schmitt was the predecessor of Korn in that position?
A. Yes, Schmitt was Korn's predecessor as President of the District Court.
Q. Yes, And what did Schmitt ask you to do, specifically, when he got in touch with you about the Jansen case?
A. Well, first of all, I made a written report to Schmitt and told him that the file had been removed. Thereupon, Schmitt asked for the files. When the files arrived, Schmitt talked the matter over with me as to what steps were to be taken. Schmitt held the opinion that it was advisable to drop the case because it was only wanted the prosecution proceedings to be dropped on account of the matter being trifling, and for the rest he suggested that a private case should be made of it. That view was curious in so far as a private litigation would have had to be discontinued for the same reason, namely that it was a trifling matter. My talk with Schmitt ended by my telling Schmitt that I would report his views to my judges. That group of judges would have consisted of myself, as the presiding judge of a small chamber, and two other judges. But it never happened because Schmitt told me in in the course of that conversation that I was about to lose my job as presiding judge of the small chamber, and I did lose my post. On the first of January, I was assigned to a new post.
Q. And what happened to the tribunal, to the small chamber which you had been in before?
A. A judge whose name was Kreiss became the presiding judge of the small penal chamber.
Q. Do you have any opinion as to who ordered your removal?
A. My immediate superior was Schmitt, but one can assume for certain that Schmitt was not acting on his own initiative, but that he was acting on the instructions of this superior.
Q. Who was Schmitt's superior?
A. Schmitt's superior was the President of the District Courts of Appeals; at that time must have been Dr. Rothenberger.
Q. Yes. Now when the chamber over which you were presiding got a man to take your place, what was the subsequent history of the Jansen case before this new judge?
A. The new judge stopped the proceedings.
Q. Dr. Waldow, as a judge for many years in Hamburg, you have an opportunity in examine and see in operation the system, the so-called system of preview which I believe was inaugurated by Dr. Rothenberger there. I would like to show you, Dr. Waldow, one moment please, I would like to show you, Dr. Waldow a case that I believe you were involved in, in which the system of preview and review is demonstrated.
May I ask that the document NG-2220 be marked for indentigication and be given No. 597 reserved for it. May the record also show that I am now handing the original to Dr. Waldow for perusal. I have English and German copies which we will distribute at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for indentification 597. Do you propose to offer this today?
MR. KING: Yes.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Waldow, the document I have place before you, identified by the numbers NG-2220 was--my Bolish is not very good, I am afraid was the Komorowski case. I would like to have you briefly tell the Court was connection you had with the Komorowski case and when I will ask you one or two additional questions.
A. The Komorowski case was tried by the Altona Penal Chamber, and I was a judge on that chamber at the time.
The court became convinced that the defendant was guilty and sentenced him two years in the penitentiary. He had committed a sex crime.
Q. One moment, Dr. Waldow. He was sentenced to two years under what statute, may I ask? Do you happen to recall?
A. He was convicted under Article 176; Section of the German Penal Code.
Q. Will you proceed please? I am sorry I interrupted you.
A. A little while after that verdict was passed, President of the District Court Koru called a meeting. At the meeting, that verdict was criticized as having been too lenient. An appeal was made, and the Reich Supreme Court revoked the verdict. The Reich Supremo Court transferred the case to the District Court in Hamburg, and at the retrial the Court formed the opinion that the defendant had been drunk and convicted him for drunkenness and not for a sex crime. At the retrial I was not present for the penal chamber at Altona had been dissolved in the meantime.
Q. Now, when Dr. Korn called you in, you and the other judges, to criticize you for the decision in the first hearing of the case, is it your recollection that what he said is accurately reflected in the first letter dated Hamburg, 6 May 1942 and signed Korn, which you find as the first page of the exhibit?
A. Yes. Naturally at that time I didn't know this letter, but the things which Korn told us at the time are identical with the letter here.
Q. In your experience, Dr. WaldoW, as a judge in Hamburg would say that this was a rather typical example of the way preview and review was used to control decisions of judges?
A. Yes, it is a typical example, but I should like to point out that conference was held shortly after Hitler had made his famans speech against the german administration of justice. That speech had upset the judiciary considerably, and in Hamburg had caused the introduction of the preview and review method.
Q. I have just two more questions, Dr. Waldow. What experience have you personally had with the practice of taking people into protective custody without court trial?
A. It was well known that National Socialism had political opponents from the very moment of the seizure of power and dealt with them severely. I myself became acquainted with these practices as in 1944 I myself spent three weeks in protective custody. Also, I remember the case of an attorney - Bukl was his name. The Gestapo took him into custody too and treated him badly. Then I can recollect another case where a defendant who had violated Article 175 of the Penal Code, that is a sexual crime committed between men, and the defendant asked for a long prison term because he wanted to avoid a transfer to the Gestapo.
Q. Dr. Waldow, while you were in protective custody, did you let me withdraw that. Did you ever hear, either before or after yourself were a victim of protective custody, of the general practice, aside from the specific incidents which you have recounted for us?
A.- As concerns penal practices, you mean the treatment of prisoners?
Q.- No.
A.- Or just what are you referring to?
Q.- I mean the general practice of putting people in protective custody without having benefit of court proceedings. Was that generally known to you even before you became a victim of it?
A.- Well, that that was a very general practice I knew.
Q.- Yes, one final question, Dr. Waldow. Will you look at page 1 of the document which you have before you, and you will notice there that Korn addresses a letter to the President of the Hanseatic Court of Appeal, that is Rothenberger, of course, attention Local Court Justice B-a-r-t-s-c-h-. Do you know the individual of that name?
A.- I don't know Bartsch.
MR. KING: With the exception of offering the Exhibit 597, we have no further questions of this witness at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you are offering 597 now?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received. You may cross examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Attorney for the defendant Rothenberger):Your Honor, during my cross-examination I should like to restrict myself to the Komorowski case, because at the beginning of his testimony the witness again referred to the Jansen case which I cannot deal with until tomorrow because as I mentioned in connection with the previous witness, I first have to see the file.
Q.- Witness, the Prosecutor showed you this file. It is a letter from Korn dated 6th May 1942, and it relates to a conference of judges which you- attended. You have said here that this was a case of preview and review. Is it possible that you made a mistake there because after all the Fuehrer's speech was only made at the end of April, and according to Dr. Rothenberger's own account, at this time he was only preparing that method of preview and review.
A.- I was misunderstood somewhat. The preview and review was an arrangement between the President of the District Court of Appeals and the highest judges, and this meeting which Dr. Korn called was a meeting of quite a different kind. This was simply a conference which the president had called and which the judges of his district court, and it wasn't really and instance of preview and review.
Q.- Thank you. I only wanted you to explain the matter, because this conference of judges has nothing to do with the system of preview and review. The Prosecutor asked you whether you knew that many people were taken to concentration camp without having been tried before a court, and you answered that question in the affirmative. Now, I should like to ask you, in view of the political situation in Germany were people not from the very beginning always taken to concentration camps without first consulting the administration of justice.
A.- Well, I didn't mean to say that, it wasn't the administration of justice that took people to concentration camps; it was the National Socialism, which quite generally after the seizure of power put political enemies into concentration camps.
Q.- Is it right that the administration of justice was quite powerless to do anything about this?
A.- Anyhow, it did not do anything against it; it didn't matter whether it was powerless.
Q.- The President of the District Court of Appeal of that time, Korn in this letter displayed a severe view concerning the application of the legal provisions to Poles. Do you know whether that view in any way was also the view of Dr. Rothenberger?
A.- No, I know nothing of Dr. Rothenberger's personal opinion. In this connection I simply have to assume, and I believe that it was the general opinion of that time, that President Korn was not voicing those opinions on his own initiative, and that at that time he was complying with instructions from his superior.
Q.- That is a conclusion which you are drawing from conditions of subordination in Germany. Is it correct that otherwise in Hamburg that hardly any general practice concerning Poles could develop for the very reason that hardly any Poles stayed in Hamburg?
A.- That is correct. Naturally we only had a very few Polish cases there.
Q.- Witness, concerning the preview and review, about which the Prosecutor asked you in connection with this case, did you ever attend any preview or review?
A.- No, I never attended any preview or review.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. As I want to restrict my questions to this subject, I have finished my cross-examination; however, I reserve the right to cross-examine the witness on the Jansen case to morrow.
REDIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Q.- Dr. Waldow, do you recall when the practice of preview and review was formally established in Hamburg?
A.- You want me to name the date?
Q.- If you can recall it, yes.
A.- My guess is that it was in the summer of 1942.
Q.- Dr. Waldow, I have a document here which I would like to show you, and ask what conclusions you come to after you have read it. After you have read it, will you please tell the Court what it is and what conclusions you reach on the basis of it?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: One moment. Without knowing the document I cannot judge whether this falls within the scope of redirect examination and, therefore, may I please have a look at it for a moment?
MR. KING: I had the same problem with Dr. Wandschneider this morning but I will give him a copy.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you.
A.- I gather from this document, -
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: One moment; just a moment, witness, please. I have no objection to questions being asked in connection with this.
A.- I gather from this document that the preview and review was established somewhat earlier than I seemed to remember; it was established as early as May.
Q.- What date in May, please?
A.- The document is dated 4th of May, so that it must be have been established soon after.
Q.- What is suggested in the document which you have before you as to the time and place of meeting of preview and review participants?
A.- I see that the presidents were to attend the conferences and that the conferences were to be held every Friday.
Q.- Now, do you recall the date of your meeting with Dr. Korn in connection with the Komorowski case?
A.- You want mo to say when we had that meeting with President Korn?
Q.- Yes, the date on the document is May 5th. Have you any reason to doubt that that date is incorrect?
A.- No, I have no reason to doubt that.
Q.- So that Korn's conference with you and the other judges was held the day after the notice was circulated which established the regular meetings of preview and review participants; that is correct, is it not?
A.- One day later -- that may be right.
MR. KING: I have no further questions to ask of this witness.
