You order him to carry out some auditing work with one of the enterprises, and he refuses to do that. Could you charge him as a soldier?
A: Since I did not have a disciplinary authority over him I could not do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritsch, just to show you we understand all about this - can I give you an illustration. Suppose I ask the soldier who is standing at the door to lock the door, and he refuses to do it, and he lots people in. He's disobeyed the Court's order. But I cannot discipline him. I must send him to his commanding officer to be disciplined, is that what you are trying to say?
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, your Honor, that's it, exactly.
THE PRESIDENT: We understood that at a quarter after two.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I understood it too; however, it was doubted that the witness, since he held the rank of a colonel, could not give any orders to the soldiers there. I shall, therefore, leave this subject. And now I would like to come to another question.
MR. ROBBINS: If I may point out, your Honor, - as the witness said, the matter of giving orders to someone is quite different from the matter of discipline. I don't think the counsel's statement is entirely correct.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I am awfully sorry, I believe we can do this in two brief sentences. The major in the street, could he order the non-commissioned officer to salute him?
A: Yes, he could order him to dot that.
Q: That was the first sentence. And if he did not salute him?
A: Then the question arose, who could exercise disciplinary authority, and the major had to report him to his commanding officer.
DR. FRITSCH: I believe that has exhausted the subject.
Q: I am coming to a last question, finally. How much mail passed through Staff W every day, that is to say, how much mail passed through your hands?
A: Eighty to one hundred letters and post cards.
Q: The witness Dr. Karoli has explained to us how this mail was distributed.
A: Yes, it is correct. I distributed it.
Q: Did this mail come to you with the stamp stating it had been received, or did you first have to open this mail?
A: It came to me with the entry stamp after it had been opened already.
Q: Did you read this mail? Did you read it with regard to the subject it was dealing with, or did you just glance at the mail in order to pass it on to the competent specialist who would handle it?
A: It was impossible for me to read everything. It was only possible since we did not have much personnel, and as the war went on it was impossible for us to read everything.
Q: What did you do with the mail about which you wanted a report? Just how did you put any special marks on it?
A: Some mark was put on it. Either I wrote down inquiry, in order to inform myself further about the matter or I would pass the matter on to somebody who would put some mark on it.
However, for the most part it was handled in such a way because we were a very small agency, and I myself would turn to the competent persons who were interested in that mail.
Q: Just how much mail did you put aside so that you would sign it yourself every day?
A: Approximately half of what arrived. After all, there were some small matters among this mail and they were signed by others.
Q: Who else was authorized to sign?
A: The individual specialists in their fields.
Q: Approximately how many were there?
A: Three.
Q: You therefore want to say that you do not know just what mail you worked on individually, and you could not see everything that was sent out?
A: No, I could not see all the mail which was dispatched.
Q: Witness, I am now referring again to some of the documents which were put to you, and most of them speak for themselves. However, I would like to refer once more to the Schieferoel case. I don't want to got into many details there, but I can state that only the Tribunal, of all people concerned, has described and estimated the matter correctly. However, here we are dealing with the question of your veracity. You have been shown a photostatic copy, and during the cross examination by the prosecutor I was unable to hear whether it has been clearly determined whether the mark which is located on this photostatic copy are your initials or were they just the initials of somebody else?
A: The letter "P" stands for Pohl, and it does not mean Baier. The second letter is the day - it is a 13, and does not represent a "B". Below that, we have the month. I believe that this question can be clarified by asking the defendant Pohl about the matter.
Q: It is important for me, witness, that you have never seen the photostatic copy of the document, is that correct?
A: After having thought the matter over once more I can affirm under oath that I have not seen this document before.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Witness, please take a look at Document 4002, Exhibit 497. Will you please take a look at it once more. The Prosecutor asked you about this telegram, I beg your pardon, the telegram is the Document No. 3839. However, it is Exhibit 594. It is one of the documents which was submitted today. First of all, I have one question. Have you found it?
A No.
Q This firm, Getewent, is known to you, isn't it?
A Yes.
Q. Was it part of the DWB?
A No, it did not belong to the DWB.
Q Did it belong to the WVHA?
A No, it did not belong to the WVHA.
Q Do you know to what it belonged?
A It belonged to the Reich Ministry of Economics.
Q Why did you handle this matter at all if the firm actually did not belong to the WVHA nor the DWB?
A Pohl was personally included in that matter, but I don't know exactly what authority he had.
Q You, however, wrote a letter in this matter. It has been submitted.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q By whose order did you write this letter?
A I wrote it by order of the Defendant Pohl.
Q Were you ordered to write this letter during the conference of the 18th of October 1944? That is the letter, that is the date which is on the letter in question.
A Yes, probably.
Q Witness, just what did this telegram state; what was the meaning of it?
A The telegram states - I can only take it from the text here first, that the Commander of the concentration camp Gross-Rosen apparently is stationed elsewhere and that there is a possibility to contact him Court No. II, Case No. 4.over his radio station.
Q Contact with whom, with the commander?
A No, the contact from the commander to the DWB; contact between the commander and the Getewent.
Q Therefore was the contact to be established between you and the concentration camp Gross Rosen in the Getewent affair?
A No. Here it was only to be announced that there was a possibility in March of 1945 to somehow establish contact with the Getewent Company. It couldn't be done by telephone any more.
Q Why wasn't it possible?
A Since the front line became closer, hence the enemy was approaching, therefore we could only use radio teletype.
Q Witness, Mr. Robbins asked you about the various concentration camps which you visited. From the way in which he asked the questions I must assume that it still has not been clarified to what extent the enterprises are to be separated from the protective custody camps. I am now speaking with regard to their location. You were asked, I think with regard to Auschwitz, whether you couldn't notice the smell there or the smoke, whether you couldn't assume from that that a crematorium existed there. Can you tell us just how far the enterprise that you visited there was located from the actual concentration camp?
A The work shop of the DEST was several kilometers away from the camp. The work shop of the DAW which I visited was closer to the camp, near the camp limits. However, you still couldn't see the camp itself there. There must have been a distance of about five to six hundred meters. There was a fence there, and, however, you couldn't actually see the camp.
Q Witness, I only have one more question on that subject. At the present time, your answers in this series of questions, it became evident that you were in Dachau more often than you visited other places. That was in the time when you were already in Staff W. Can you give me any reasons why you went to Dachau so frequently?
A Yes, the reason was that my family was residing at Dachau.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Your family continued residing at Dachau when you went to Berlin?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Witness, unfortunately I have to refer once more to the title of office chief. I have one question in this connection. I must assume that is known here, that in Germany, in Government organizations, with regard to the deputizing, we had two different concepts. Could you name and explain those two concepts to me as far as the signing matters were concerned?
A With regard to the signing of documents there were two ways of deputizing. There is no other German word for it. We had I.A. and I.V., "By order of", and "Deputizing for".
Q What was used usually to express the more important matter of deputizing?
A The I.V., In Vertretung. "Deputizing for" was the stronger expression while I.A. was the weaker one.
Q Who signed with the letters I.V.? Could many people sign their letters with I.V.?
A Only one person could sign the letters I.V. That was the official deputy.
Q And the small specialist?
A The small specialist could be appointed to sign I.A. That means, "By order of."
Q You were asked, witness, whether the office chiefs were the deputies of Pohl. If we interpret the term of deputy according to the two possibilities of signing a letter, would you then say that you were Pohl's deputy?
A No.
Q What position did you hold then?
A If we take the signatures I always signed I.A. That means, "By order of". That is to say I was empowered to sign that way.
Q Please take a look at document, Exhibit 596, Document 3830, which you have been shown today in the course of your cross-examination.
A I don't have it here.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Witness, in the direct examination we clarified the question yesterday for what purpose you were assigned to the WVHA. You stated that technical auditing matters were the reasons for it and you were only used to work on financial and auditing matters. Does this document state anything different?
A Please hand me the document because I don't have it before me. Yes, Points 1 to 6, under Roman I limit this field in that sense.
Q If you look at Points 1 to 6, or if you look at the document, does it become evident that you had the authority to make certain decisions about the things which are specified in Points 1 to 6 and were examined in that letter?
A No, that is not expressed here. I know that in such cases already, in order to orient myself, I fundamentally requested Pohl's permission whenever something like that occurred.
Q Please read Paragraph 2 to us.
A "All requests are to be addressed to me through Chief W."
Q I wanted to ask you, witness, whether you had the authority to make decisions, or whether you could only make certain recommendations?
A I only could make certain recommendations, because Article 2 confirms that.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I am afraid that I won't be able to complete my re-examination now.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you prefer to continue in the morning?
DP. FRITSCH: Yes, I would prefer that, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will recess until,tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 25 July 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 25 July 1947, 0930, Judge Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2. Military Tribunal No. 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show that the defendant Kiefer is absent from this session of court because of illness. The trial will proceed in his absence.
HANS BAIER - Resumed RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. FRITSCH (Counsel for defendant Baier):
Q. Witness, I shall refer once more briefly to the affair Schieferoel. I only want to refer to the file mark in that connection. It is in Document NO-4076: this is Exhibit 589. I am going to show you this file note once more, and I want to ask you the following question. Were you particularly obligated to keep secrecy?
A. I did not have any special obligation to keep secret, and I did not have that particular function.
Q. Were you able to look into the files which Pohl kept and which were classified as secret?
A. No.
Q. Well, just what brought about this file note. You didn't make any statement about that when you were cross-examined by the prosecution.
A. Of course, I can't remember all the details any more today, however, but I assume that Pohl dictated this secret report which was addressed to Himmler, and since this report was classified as secret he kept it in a special place in his office so that it could be seen in the "general file". That a secret report had been submitted by Pohl in that matter he probably told me when I came to see him about this matter so I could compile an index for the file in which all this work was kept.
Q. Did you then include this special report in the general report, or what happened to it?
A. I probably turned it over to my secretary, and the secretary probably passed on the note for the competent specialist in this matter, In this case it was put into the files.
Q. Witness, in the cross examination it has apparently been assumed that this secret note, or that this secret report, was a report in matters concerning inmates. What can you tell us about that?
A. I didn't even see this secret report myself. Furthermore, I determined that the Schieferoel CMBH actually did not run its own enterprises yet. Therefore, no inmates could have been employed in that enterprise, consequently Pohl could not have compiled a secret report about inmate questions. In all probability this was the new procedure which was to be followed as far as the production of slate oil was concerned. It was to be produced from German slate. It is natural that such a secret process could not be announced to everybody.
Q. Witness, and now I want to ask you another question. The prosecution has asked you in the cross examination a question with regard to the business order. This business order was provided with a new document number. It was submitted as Document 3170.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I don't know whether it received any exhibit number. I forgot to ask about this matter this morning, and Mr. Robbins was a little bit too fast for me yesterday.
It is 595, Your Honor.
At the same time Exhibit 597 was submitted, which was Document 3829. It was a statement with regard to the authority of the office chiefs.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. That is a document which you described as having originated with Dr. Hoffmann; however, it was not signed. I am interested in only one question in that respect. Can you tell me whether you, yourself, in any way caused Dr. Hoffmann to compile this draft? Have you thought over this matter, perhaps, in the meantime?
A. Of course, I thought the matter over in the meantime and I must say that I did not cause him to compile this draft. For me this is a document which I actually cannot recall. But, I don't want to deny that perhaps I have seen it on some occasion.
Q. Witness, can it be in any connection with the business order which was compiled approximately one year later, I mean as far as setting it up is concerned?
A. Yes, and it could be connected with it in the following manner.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't mean one year later on, do you?
DR. FRITSCH: Oh, I beg your pardon, Your Honor. I just made a mistake with regard to the date. It was two months later.
Q. Witness, will you please give us your answer.
A. When I came to Staff W, I heard that the standard order of procedure was in existence. This also becomes apparent from the document about the uncompleted work. This standard order of procedure had become lost as the result of an air raid. Since I, as an official, was used to complying with business orders of course, I tried again to establish such a business order. At the time I myself could not give the necessary details which were needed in order to compile such a business order, because I was new in the staff and I didn't know the work yet. However, I believe that I once asked Pohl about such an order and I do not consider it impossible that Pohl at the time ordered Dr. Hoffmann to work on this matter. In any case, this report of Dr. Hoffmann never went into effect and it cannot be compared with the business order which was issued later on. As I have already stated in my cross-examination by the prosecution several points were also included in the business order later on. After all, this was also a program for the future.
Q. Witness, let us turn to a different series of questions. I want to go into the matter of the Osti once more very briefly. It has been clarified that the Osti is not mentioned in the order about the "uncompleted work" file note.
It has just been discussed here in detail. However, we have several documents in which Dr. Horn turns to you because of the questions of the liquidation of the enterprises. In this case are these tasks of the Auditing Department? In short, are they dealing here with auditing questions?
A. No, legal questions are concerned here. I have already explained that as far as I know the cloak of the G.M.B.H. was to remain in existence. Therefore, this was a matter which had to be handled by the Legal Department.
Q. Witness, I will have to show you another document, which is contained in Document Book XIX. I beg your pardon, just a moment please. This is Document 1270, Exhibit 482 on page 7 of the German text, and, unfortunately, I don't know what page it is in the English text. This is the file note of Dr. Horn after a conference with Pohl. Will you please tell us what date is stated on this file note?
A. The file note is dated the 13th of February, 1943.
Q. Witness, please read the last sentence to us.
A. "From todays conference with the Obergruppenfuehrer, the undersigned believes that the business manager of the Osti should have a free hand for decisions and measures which are necessary in connection with the Osti."
Q. In your opinion was this to show that the Osti could work independently from the machine in Amtsgruppe W, or was the Osti, in spite of everything, a DWB enterprise?
A. No, it was not a DWB enterprise.
Q. Witness, however, you kept files about the Osti, didn't you? Right?
A. Yes, however, it is only natural that we had the files because the fact that Horn wrote down at all about the liquidation, this matter had to be handled somewhere. Every letter which was addressed to Staff W had to be put in a certain file and, therefore, one could also speak of the files of the Osti.
Q. Were there any business matters of the Osti which belonged to you personally here which were handled by another department?
A. Yes, I understand from a letter that first intermediary reports about the status of the liquidation of the Osti were sent and passed on through Staff W.
Q. Witness, will you try to refer to the contents of Document 1264, Exhibit 598, which has been submitted here? Does this document show anything about the kind of activity?
A. I could not get any details at all from any of these reports, as far as production questions in the Osti, etc., were concerned. Of course, I saw that glass works and that machine parts were in existence. However, I was only interested in the funds which were available in that connection.
Q. In this connection, I would like to ask you the following: In the cross-examination, the, words "confiscation" and "seizure have again been confused. Now I want to ask you a very precise question. In order to clarify everything I would like you to remain with the Osti. You did see the balance sheets of the Osti on one occasion, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. What did these balance sheets show?
A. In the Osti balance sheets there was a certain figure listed for the properties and also the debts.
Q. In the case of the Osti or in the case of any other enterprises did you hear that values existed for which no counter value was given?
A. No, I didn't see anything of the kind.
Q. Witness, do you know anything about just how property belonging to the enemy nations was taken over by the Reich?
A. No, I don't know any details whatsoever about that. I only know that the Reich took over properties which belonged to enemy nations
Q. Was this property confiscated in Germany, that is to say, was it confiscated by the Reich without any compensation or was it only temporarily seized?
A. I don't know that. I never had anything to do with these things. However, I cannot imagine that it was confiscated, that is to say, just taken away without any compensation at all.
Q. Witness, I am now coming to another series of questions and this matter has also been discussed in the cross-examination. The prosecution was trying to prove in the cross-examination that you in some form had participated in the medical experiments. This is Document 5 -- I beg your pardon, these are Exhibit 599 and Exhibit 600. I am now referring first of all to the note which you took down when you met Dr. Vaernet. Witness, you didn't tell me anything about this matter either. Just what brought about this lapse of memory on your part, or didn't you tell me about that on purpose?
A. No. I only occupied myself briefly in this matter, and in this case I was to establish a liaison between Vaernet and the German Drugs, G.m.b.H., the Deutsche Heilmittel, G.m.b.H.
Q. Is that shown by document 2194, which was submitted as Exhibit 600, that was when you ordered certain rooms from Riecks and Gerke?
A. Yes, that is correct. Dr. Vaernet, I can remember, had informed Pohl of his (Dr. V's) visit. He probably had a conference with him, and, as his room had to be ordered he sent him to see me.
Q. Accordingly you were nothing but a better class messenger boy, is that right?
A. No. That, of course, is not correct. However, in order to use the military term, this could be called a detail.
Q. Witness as a result of the letter from Riecks, 7/8/44, you took some action. You have this document before you here, and you found out that inmates were concerned in this matter. However, unless I am mistaken, there is an interval of six months between the time you met up with Dr. Vaernet, and this letter?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Before you received the letter from Riecks, did you know, as a result of your conversation with Loerner, any details about the matters pertaining to inmates?
A. No. I consider it impossible, because, otherwise, I certainly would have remembered this affair. However, in August Riecks wrote something about inmates.
Q. I beg your pardon, I did not hear your, last part of the answer?
A. In August Riecks did write something about experiments on inmates.
Q. Of experiments on inmates?
A. Yes.
Q. I intend showing you the testimony of the Czech physician, Dr. Horn, who testified in the medical trial.
Dr. Horn was an inmate at Buchenwald, and he was examined in detail about all these matters in the medical case. Here we have the transcript of the morning session of Tribunal I, dated 1 April 1947. Here I have very short excerpts from pages 5340 to 5344; and, I quote:
"Q. Witness, can you recall from your activity in the inmates hospital at Buchenwald a Danish physician who carried out treatments with hormones on inmates?
"A. Yes. It was all at the time when Dr. Schiedlauski was there, when the latter said on one occasion that several inmates were given a treatment of hormones. I pointed out that we had very little space available. After all we already had inmates who had been injured in the course of air raids. Dr. Schiedlauski saw my point, but declared that there were only a few inmates concerned in this matter, and that male crystal hormones were to be applied in the case of inmates who had been castrated by virtue of German law, concerning homosexuals. I was rather interested in the matter. A short time after that, or immediately after this discussion, I believe I read in a Swiss Medical Journal a description of the application of this crystal hormone by a Swiss physician.
"Q. The Camp Physician, Dr. Schiedlauski in his affidavit, which has been presented here, it is document NO 508, Prosecution's Exhibit 244, does not mention any fatalities which could have occurred here. The witness, Dr. Kogon, however, has stated that he had heard from a third party, that two persons had died in connection with this treatment. What is your opinion about that?
"A. The first group of six inmates and other numbers were brought into the barracks, after six days they were released; their hands had healed and that is to say, that they had healed very well. From this it can be concluded that the drugs did not contain any bacteriae and that they were not poisonous. The inmates were released, and they were kept under further observation.
I can not report anything about any fatalities.
"Q. Therefore, in connection with those treatments through hormone tablets, we can not speak of that being an experiment at all. Would you consider this a method of treatment, or an experiment?
"A. I have seen these people for a period of three months. They came to see us occasionally, and, therefore, we can not call this an experiment. We can only talk about applications here just as I saw them as a group. We could only speak about an application of a drug which was known to us, even if we did not have the drugs in our hands. What the duties of Dr. Schiedlauski were he should know. What we assumed, was that the drugs were free of bacteriae, and that these people did not die as a result of the treatment." End of quotation.
From this testimony it becomes evident that we are not dealing with experiments. Did you know that, witness?
A. Yes. According to this testimony, we are not concerned with experiments here.
Q. But what did you know about that?
A. I did not know anything beyond what Riecks had wrote me in this letter. However, I would like to add in this connection that I have just remembered with regard to Dr. Vaernet, that we had discussed the matter, and that it was rumored that higher leaders were to receive these hormones in order to improve their potence, and I heard in this connection that these drugs usually were very expensive.
Q. Witness, did you see Dr. Vaernet again on any other occasion. Did you see him when he gave these hormones to inmates in usual tablet form?
A. No. So that it will not be said later on, that I kept this matter a secret, I would like to say now that I met Dr. Vaernet when we were at the Deutsche Heilmittel G.m.b.H. at Prague. I knew that he occupied himself there with the development of artificial glands. Since there were no inmates at Prague, he could not carry out any ex periments on inmates.
In any case, my official activity was completed, when I had reported him for technical work to Riecks.
Q. Did Reicks send you some notification about the matter a little later on, which was in August 1944?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Witness, I want to touch upon another question very briefly. In your cross-examination the matter of your transfer from the Navy to the Waffen-SS has been discussed. At the time could you have refused to join the SS-Verfuegungstruppe?
A. Yes, I could have refused but that would not have done me any good. Pohl would have succeeded in his plan inspite of my opposition, so that I could not have refused as an official, to get transferred.
Q. In 1939, I want to take the date of 1 September 1939, on your own desire, could you have left the Waffen-SS at that time?
A. No, I could not. At the time I was a soldier, and we were in war.
Q. Witness, upon questioning from me on direct examination, you stated that you had drawn the necessary consequences when you came from the school to the WVHA, if this had not been war time. Isn't that a certain contradiction?
A. I meant that in the following manner. I would have asked to be placed on pension. Whether I would have succeeded in doing so, of course, is another question.
DR. FRITSCH: I do not have any further questions, Your Honor.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, when you heard Dr. Kogon testify here at great length about the hormone experiments didn't you remember this correspondence in your connection?
A. I was not able to recall this correspondence at the time.
Q. You didn't remember then that you had ever heard about experiments with hormones?
A. I didn't hear anything about experiments but I only heard that an artificial gland had been developed which was a technical procedure and was not to lead to experiments but was to be applied just as had been done in the crystal treatment which had existed for hormones for years.
Q. And you didn't remember then these were to be applied to inmates in Buchenwald?
A. No, it was completely unknown to me.
Q. You didn't remember that they were to be applied to inmates of concentration camps somewhere or other?
A. It is possible that this matter was discussed on one occasion. It is possible that the intention existed to apply this to inmates. However, I don't know if it actually happened. I only heard of it in the course of this trial.
Q. Do you remember that Dr. Fritsch asked you the following very narrow question on his direct examination and told you to answer it with Yes or No: "Did you have anything to do with any of the medical experiments mentioned in the document books?" You answered, "No." Isn't it true that you told Dr. Fritsch to so limit his question to the document books and not to include the other proof in the case?
A. I did not consider the development of this artificial gland to be an experiment.
Q. You never mentioned anything at all about artificial glands to your counsel, is that right? Never mentioned the word to him?
A. I can't recall having mentioned it. I spoke a lot with him, but just don't know if I told him that.
Q. There is one last matter I would like to discuss with you and and that is your testimony concerning the defendant Klein. I read over the testimony you gave yesterday afternoon very carefully and you made several statements contradictory to each other. You told me on cross examination, first, that Klein was fired - that he was discharged. Second, the reason for his discharge was because of irregularities in his books. And, third, that his discharge was not because of any transfer to the front, And, then after a recess, you told Klein's counsel this, in answer to a question: "Do you know that Klein himself requested this auditing to be done?" You said, "Yes, Klein as a Lieutenant in the Reserve wanted to go to the front. I can remember that exactly. Before going to the front he wanted to be able to justify himself as an office chief of the auditing department because he was going to the front."
You had told me in answer to this question: "His discharge wasn't because he asked for a transfer to the front , was it?" You said, "That was something that had nothing to do with it." Now, your testimony in answer to my question is false or your testimony in answer to Kelin's counsel's questions were false. I want to get to the bottom of this and find out what you know about it. Tell me, is it true that Klein was discharged because of irregularities in his books?
A. That is correct. However, I must add the following.......
Q. Let me ask you this. His going to the front was the result of his being discharged, was it not?
A. No.
Q. You don't recall making that statement to me on my cross examination?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, the matter is as follows: It is correct that as a result of the auditing report he was dismissed. However, Klein in person suggested that this auditing work was to be carried out. That's Then the auditing was carried out.