DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, this drawing concerning Flossenburg will receive the exhibit number Volk's No. 2, and this drawing concerning WVHA is to receive Volk's No. 3, as an exhibit number.
MR. ROBBINS: If the Tribunal please, I believe before these drawings should be received in evidence, the witness should identify them by saying who drew them, and whether or not they are correct in his opinion.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall now ask the question.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Now, Herr Dr. Volk, are these drawings correct. Do they depict the positions and places where they were located correctly?
THE WITNESS: I made these drawings of Flossenburg by heart, to my best knowledge and belief. I could not tell you anything else about that. The drawing about the offices is correct as to that, it could not be any different.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Prior to recess, Witness, we were talking about your visit near Flossenburg. Did you have enough authority to visit concentration camps?
A No, a special permission was necessary for that.
Q Who issued authority to visit concentration camps?
A So far as I know Herr Pohl and Herr Gluecks.
Q. Did you at any time receive such authority?
A No.
Q Did you at any time ask for such authority?
A No. Because I had nothing to do with concentration camp matters. At least, in an official capacity.
Q I shall now come to a discussion on Document NO-1914 -- NO-1914to 1916, Exhibits Nos. 395 to 397, in Document Book XIV, pages 62 to 68 of the German and pages 65 to 69 of the English Document Books. The documents deal with negotiations about the Schlackenwerk factory in Linz.
Was that Schlackenwerk factory in Linz controlled either by the WVHA or the DWB in a supervisory capacity?
A The Schlackenwerks in Linz was a part of the Hermann Goering Works, and they in turn were a part of the Hermann Goering concern. That concern was a Reich Company, which was under the supervisory authority of the agency for the Four Year Plan.
Q According to Document No. 1914, Exhibit No. 395. on the 6 August 1942 you participated in a conference, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q In what capacity did you participate in that conference?
A I participated in that conference as the man in charge of the legal department of Staff-W.
Q What was your task during that conference, Witness?
AAs a lawyer I was to participate in that conference, because contracts were to be submitted to the Hermann Goering Works.
Q What was the purpose of that conference, Witness?
A The conclusion of a contract concerning the delivery of burnt coal.
Q This Document No. NO-1914, Exhibit No. 395, does it describe the results of the conferences correctly?
A It seems that the document describes the results correctly. However, I shall have to add that prior to that conference I knew nothing about the subject of the conference. I was not informed. Even during the conference I could not quite understand what it was all about. I started to work upon conclusion of our contracts I had to check up on the legal contents of the contract.
Q And how far did you at all participate in that conference?
A I only listened to them, that is all. I could not participate because I knew nothing about the subject to be dealt with in advance. If the Economic parties had agreed in all respects, then I would have come into action. Then, of course, I would have had a conference with all the lawyers of Hermann Goering's Works, and I would have drawn up the results of the conference in a legal manner.
However, I never did do that, we never did get that far.
Q.- Who was it that would be competent for the increase in inmate labor provided for in this document.
A.- Office Group D would be responsible for that. To be more specific - Office D II.
Q.- Did you have to make a decision here in this connection?
A.- No, I didn't.
Q.- What was the reason that you participated in the further conferences, which according to Document No. 1915 and 1916, Exhibits 396 and 397, contained in Document Book 14, on page 67 and the following pages of the German Document Book, and page 68 and 69 of the English Document Book, took place on the 30th of July and 25th of September, 1942. Apparently you did not participate in all those enumerated conferences, did you?
A.- All these conferences dealt with purely economic matters, namely about the negotiations for the delivery of burnt coal and inmate allocation. However, I was not competent for the decision in that field. That was the reason why I was no longer invited to participate in those conference.
Q.- What was the reason for your writing the letter of the 15th of August, 1942 which is contained in Document No. 1915, Exhibit 396, in Document Book 14, on page 66 of the German and 68 of the English Document Book?
A.- What the reason was for writing that letter I could not tell you today. I assume, however, that Herr Pohl told me I was to inform Mummenthey and all the other persons listes in this document - namely, that Dr. Hohberg was the leading personality there. That could have been done by telephone, but I thought it would be much better to send out the order in writing so that later nobody could excuse himself by saying he was not informed by me. The persons contained in that letter were dictated to me by Herr Pohl.
Q.- What was the result of the conference with the Schlackenwerk in Linz?
A.- I heard nothing further about the entire matter. I no longer participated in working out or setting up any future contracts. That was the reason I couldn't tell you if any contracts were signed at all and if these contracts were drawn up by one of the lawyers of an affiliated company. It was only in this trial that I heard, from the document which was mentioned before, that Herr Pohl wanted to look through the contracts personally, wanted to draw them up himself. That is shown at the top of the document. That was the reason why the contracts were no longer sent to me.
Q.- Did any labor allocation take place in the Schlackenworks in Linz?
A.- I know nothing about it.
Q.- Did you, as a personal expert of Herr Pohl, help Herr Pohl when taking care of matters in his capacity as Main Office Chief, and did you have to consult with him?
A.- No.
Q.- Who did that, witness?
A.- Herr Pohl had his office groups chiefs to do that, and in the W offices he had his office chiefs and Chief W.
Q.- Is it correct, therefore, to say that you, as the prosecution alleged, were the personal consultant and assistant of Pohl?
A.- Yes, I was the personal consultant of Herr Pohl, but only in his purely private matters. My activity cannot be considered the activity of an assistant of the Main Office Chief and Chief of WVHA.
Q.- Did you, based on your activity as expert on certain private matters, gain any knowledge of those things and matters which Pohl had to deal with as Main Office Chief?
A.- No, I could not gain an insight into the files. The secret files, as I stated before, were taken care of by the secretary.
No one was permitted to enter the secretary's office. As I stated before, you could only enter that office by going through the adjutant's office.
Q.- Did Herr Pohl, at any time, discuss the happenings in concentration camps with you?
A.- No, Herr Pohl absolutely refused to speak with me about other things which were not part of my field of tasks and which did not concern me directly. As I stated before he absolutely refused to do so not only with me but all the other office chiefs as I heard again and again.
Q.- Now, take a look at Document No. 1915, Exhibit 396, Document Book 14, page 66 of the German and page 68 of the English document book. You wrote that letter as a personal assistant of Herr Pohl's, didn't you? Isn't that in contrast with the statement you made before that you did not act as personal referent of Herr Pohl for official matters, but only for personal matters?
A.- As I stated before, I also wrote small letters which concerned the internal inner-office communications and I wrote those letters and sent them out while using the terms "personal referent". That is only within the building because, of course, there were cases when I went in to see Herr Pohl and he told me to inform this or that agency within the building of this or that. For instance, with this letter, everybody was to be informed that all agencies were to contact Herr Dr. Hohberg. Of course, I couldn't tell him this was none of my business, but most of the time, those were things which the adjutant could just as well have taken care of, but apparently since there were few experts he took the nearest person. I was a conscripted SS officer and I couldn't very well tell a general that was none of my business. I probably would have received a hard direct order to that effect and probably would have had to do it anyway.
Q.- After you had been appointed personal referent were you still a member of Staff W?A.- Yes.
Q.- Were you still a Prokurist of DWB?
A.- Yes.
Q.- What influence did you appointment to a personal referent have with reference to your activity in DWB and with Staff W?
A.- For a while I had the activity of a personal referent - that is to say, a secretary - and had so much to do there that I couldn't deal very much with the legal matters of Staff W. That was the reason I had to leave most of my work to my deputy and I also gave him a special field of tasks.
Q.- Now, witness, take a look at Document No. 1280, Exhibit 450, contained in Document Book # 16 on page 90 of the German and page 90 of the English document books. According to this document you, in the month of March, 1942, were promoted to the Prokurist of the Klinker Works Cement G.M.B.H. Is that statement correct?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Who were the members of the company of Klinker Works Cement G.m.b.h.?
A.- The German economic enterprise G,m,b,h, was the only member of the company.
Q.- What tasks did the Klinker Cement G.m.b.h. have?
A.- The company had the task to administrate plants for construction material.
THE PRESIDENT: What document book, please?
DR. GAWLIK: 16. It is on page 90, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And the document number?
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- The document number is 1280, Exhibit # 450, contained in Document book 16. What were the reasons for your having been appointed a Prokurist of that company?
A.- The shares of the cement factory were to be purchased. The only person who had the right to represent that G.m.b.h., as a business manager, was Dr. Bobermin. As two partners were to participate during the negotiations, I was appointed a Prokurist.
Q.- How long did you remain a Prokurist with that company, witness?
A.- I only participated in that one negotiation as a Prokurist. Possibly, there was another negotiation which I cannot recall at the moment. At the end of the negotiations I carried on no further activity with that company and I had no longer the title of Prokurist.
Q.- During that time when you were Prokurist of the Klinker Cement G.m.b.h. were any inmates used in that enterprise or in any of the factories of the affiliated companies?
A.- No.
Q.- I shall now speak about Document NO-2176, which is Exhibit number 402, contained in Document Book No. 14, on page 104 of the German and page 115 of the English Document Book. That is NO-2176, Exhibit 402, Your Honor. It is at page 115 of the English Document Book No. 14.
Witness, were you business manager of the Gemeinnuetzige Wohnungs und Heimstraetten GmBH?
A.- Yes, I was.
Q.- What kind of a company was it, witness?
A.- It was a public company which had the same legal form as the GmBH.
Q.- Herr Doctor, what was your position in that company?
A.- Business manager.
Q.- What other parts of the company were there?
A.- A supervisory council was there which, according to German law, is very seldom in a GmBH, but the Gmbh can be permitted to have a supervisory council. The following people were in the supervisory council. The president of the supervisory council, Herr Pohl; deputy, Herr Loerner, and Dr. Kammler was another member of the supervisory council.
Q.- What was the purpose of that company?
A.- The purpose of that company was to build dwellings, to purchase them, and administer them.
Q.- What was your activity as business manager, witness?
A.- As can be seen from this document, the company had dwellings with 145 buildings, one business enterprise and several restaurants. My activity was to administer those buildings. As far as I can recall, I didnot buy any pieces of land. In any case, to be more exact about it, I would like to add that it was quite impossible that I still would have to sign this or that for some pieces of land that had been purchased there. My activity was limited, as I stated before, to the administration of the already existing pieces of land.
Q.- What was the reason for your appointment to business manager?
A.- I was appointed as business manager because my predecessor, Dr. Salpeter, prior to me, was in charge of the company, although Mummenthey was the business manager, had acted against the legal regulations and purchased large pieces of land for the company, too. The company, according to the community regulations, could only purchase pieces of land of a certain size, purchase them and build them up. Those were supposed to be pieces of land up to 100 square meters. My defense counsel will introduce the prevailing legal regulations in my document book.
Now, I was to tune up the piece of land of the company according to the legal regulations which prevailed at the time. This was necessary because the auditor, Dr. Hohberg, had no right to aduit the company's books according to the community law and all the other regulations which resulted from this community law the Reich Labor Minister had established, a certain association of auditors which had been prescribed by him for auditing work. The company, a public company, had certain privileges as far as taxation was concerned. Now, if the company did not comply with the prevailing regulations, then it was fined a certain amount with reference to the tax. It has to pay for all the taxes which they hadn't paid in a long time. In most of these cases, they became bankrupt.
THE PRESIDENT: You remember on Friday you explained at considerable length the difference between a business manager and a prokurist.
A.- Yes, indeed.
THE PRESIDENT: We understood you to say that you had never been a business manager, but only a prokurist. Did you say that?
A.- If I used those terms literally, I couldn't tell you, Your Honor, but what I meant to say I was never a business manager of the DWB GmBH, you see.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Was this Home Building Company, House and Home building Company, the only one that you were ever business manager of, the only company?
A.- No, it wasn't Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What, other companies were you ever business manager of?
A.- I was the business manager of the House and Real Estate, GmBH. It was established later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Any others?
A.- I can't recall any others, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Were you ever business manager of any concern that was in the DWB?
A.- No, I was never a business manager.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, to clarify this matter may I state the following. I had simply asked the witness on Friday whether he was a business manager or a prokurist of DWB for the very simply reason that the prosecution stated him allegedly to have been a business manager of the DWB.
THE PRESIDENT: We have the transcript of his testimony, so we can read it.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.- Now, do take a look at this document NO-2176, which is Exhibit number 402, and it is contained in Document Book No. 14, on page 104 of the German and 115 of the English Document Book. Take another look at it, witness, and I shall ask you -- does the business order under Roman Numeral One describe the facts as they were at the time correctly?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Does the business order state all those things accurately with reference to the activity of the business, in 1942 under this Roman number Two?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Those single family buildings which are contained under Roman Numeral One -
THE PRESIDENT: You are hurrying the interpreter, Dr. Gawlik. Give them more time, also the witness.
Q.- Those buildings contained under Roman Number One, which were Jewish Property, were they purchased while you were a member or business manager there?
A.- As far as I can recall, I did not purchase those real estates, or those pieces of land. The document also shows that it wasn't until the end of that time that I was promoted to business manager. It could be possible in any case that some signature was necessary for this or that real estate or that piece of land, then, of course, I probably gave the signature all right, but I couldn't swear to it.
Q.- I would like again to draw your attention to page 105, which is contained in Document Book No. 14. This is the document referred to above. Are all those pieces of land contained on that page, were they purchased by you, witness?
A.- With the exception of one piece of land, they are all the same ones. I don't believe that I purchased those. The same applies to this as what I stated to the first question.
Q.- What do you know about the price of the purchase of these single family pieces of land which were purchased as Jewish property?
A.- The pieces of land where purchased according to the unit price prescribed by community law.
Q.- What do you understand the unit price prescribed by taxation law, witness?
A.- By that I mean the value which is fixed by the authority issuing of fixing the taxes. It is according to this, that the tax is fixed. It is never lower than the value of the piece of land. For obviously, the taxation authority thinks it most important not to receive taxes which are too low.
Q.- Now, witness, let me draw your attention to page 107 of the Document Book referred to before; it is stated there that the pieces of land were sold much lower, or purchased much lower than the actual circulation value. Isn't that in contrast with your testimony, witness?
A.- No.
Q.- Could you tell me why it doesn't appear to be in contrast with your testimony?
A.- Due to the condition or the situation of the war, the circulation value of those pieces of land will climb. The unit value was the same because the unit value was only evaluated every five years by the taxation authorities. The pieces of land for that reason were purchased under the circulation price which had changed, of course, during the war time, but at least they were paid as much as the unit price. The idea of the House and Home Building Company's fault, therefore, was that they did not pay the prices had climbed due to the war. At least, that is the way it is explained in this document.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
This also follows from page 107 and 108 which contains a chart where the prices are contained individually. Then, so that no wrong impression is created here, I would like to state that all those pieces of land were not "Aryanized." By aryanization one means the following: According to the regulation concerning the utilization of Jewish property which was issued by the Medium Administrative Office--which in Berlin was the State president and which compels the Jew to sell his piece of land. This is not quite correct because in these cases, in our cases, this order had not been given them, but rather one of our members of our company went and negotiated with the Jews on a voluntary basis.
Apart from that the Jews were very much interested in selling their real estate or their pieces of land to that company because, according to the regulation which I just stated before, a Jew had to have the permission of the highest finance president before he could sell his piece of land. That was the Medium Administrative Office with the taxation authority.
Now, if a Jew was looking for somebody to purchase that piece of land who would be agreeable to the Jews, and the taxation office didn't want to have that--then the taxation authority did not give the Jew permission to sell. Whereupon they told him--and actually prescribed to him--to actually sell that land to somebody else. Now, that civilian employee of ours had negotiations with the Jews. Then they were very much interested in selling that piece of land to him--as improbable as it may seem--because we could actually see to it that purchase or sale was approved. When I took over the company, after all, I was charged to eliminate certain misconditions there, I immediately had a Bilanz set up. I found out that certain amounts were still due to the Jews, and I saw to it that all those amounts were paid to the Jews by transferring the amounts to their bank accounts.
In order to give clarity to the Tribunal about all those things, the Jews could not dispose freely over those amounts, but only according to the regulations which had been issued by the Reich Government, and only up to 500 marks per month. But, according to my legal feeling, as Court No. II, Case No. 4.a lawyer, I said to myself, "Jews have to have their money"--and I always acted accordingly as long as I was with the WVHA, I shall speak of a few more such cases before my examination is terminated.
Q During that time, while you were a business manager of the Public Dwelling G.m.b.H., did the company at any time employ concentration camp inmates?
A No.
Q I shall now show you Document NO-2153; which is Exhibit No. 307, as contained in Document Book No. 11, page 92 of the German document book.
Doesn't the contents of this document contrast with your testimony?
A No; this document bears the date of 1939-
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book?
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for defendant Volk): That is document book No. 11, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit number?
DR. GAWLIK: Exhibit No. 307, Your Honor. The number is NO-2153, Your Honor.
WITNESS: No, as I stated before, the document is, dated 1939 and refers to the activities and happenings in 1938. However, I only became a business manager in November, 1941. During my activity no inmates were employed, as the company during the war did not carry out any further construction activity. Even during my activity it was never known to me, it never became known to me, that prior to my time any inmates had been employed. I repeatedly asked employees how those buildings were built at the time and who had built them--but nobody could give me any information on the construction firms. Dr. Salpeter was no longer there; he was in the war; and I only saw this document here for the first time in this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that this company did no more building after you became business manager?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
WITNESS: Yes; Your Honor, no more construction activity was carried out from the beginning of the war until I came in, and even when I was a business manager no more buildings were built by this G.m.b.H.
THE PRESIDENT: Buildings were built while Dr. Salpeter was business manager?
A I couldn't tell you that, Your Honor. All I know is that Dr. Salpeter was in charge of the company as Amtehief of Office III-A: that was when the Office Administration & Economy still existed. Now, I really don't know, Your Honor, if Dr. Salpeter was business manager at the time.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q How many people were employed in that company?
A Four persons were employed in that company, and these four persons also had administered the House & Home Building Company which was later on established, and they also procured buildings for the people who had lost their homes in the war--because I was still a referent at the time--building referent--and after 1943 I was the so-called Evakuierungs referent, which stands for Evacuation Expert or Secretary. The explanation is that I had to see to it that the people who had lost their homes through bombings could be taken outside of town, and that applied to the people who came and saw me about it.
Q Was your activity as a business manager limited to a certain term in advance?
A Yes, as a business manager I was to stop being a business manager when the company had been taken care of, according to the regulations prevailing at the time. This actually took place later, towards the end of 1944, or early in 1945. That was when I joined the armed forces in the field. I had changed the company entirely and made it comply with the regulations.
Q I shall now speak about the Osti. When was the Osti established, witness?
A The Osti was established on the 12th of April, 1943. The 13th of March, rather. This can be seen from Document Book No. 19. It is on Court No. II, Case No. 4.page 67 of the German document book.
The number of the document is NO-1271, and I don't have the exhibit number.
Q The Prosecution has stated that under charge of Staff W-where you also are contained--the Osti had been established for the purpose of utilizing both Jewish property and Jewish labor. Was the Osti established under the supervision of Staff W?
A No.
Q Was the establishment of the company part of the tasks of Staff W?
A No.
Q Who was it that actually initiated the establishment?
A Mr. Pohl is the person who initiated the establishment of the Osti.
Q And how far did Staff W participate in the establishment, witness?
A Staff W had not participated in the establishment.
Q What was the development of the conference which took place on the 13th of February, witness?
A In the morning of the 13th of February, I had gone to see the Vormundschafts Gericht (Tribunal) for Herr Pohl. Herr Pohl, on the 12th of December, 1942, had gotten married again, and his wife had three children from their previous marriage. According to the legal regulations with reference to family, and according to our code, a woman who gets married again and brings children into her marriage has to have a person to take charge of the children. Mr. Pohl was to become the person to take charge of the children. That was the reason why I went to see the Vormundschafts Tribunal. I can recall all those details very well.
When I arrived later on, my secretary told me that Herr Pohl had already phoned twice. Immediately was to go to his room, that there was a conference going on there. I went to the office and reported to Mr. Pohl. Herr Loerner, Dr. Hohberg and Dr. Horn were present. Dr. Horn had a letter before him and he asked all sorts of questions to Pohl. Pohl stated that I should listen; he told me to listen to him. Mr. Horn had Court No. II, Case No. 4.asked him a few questions from that letter, which questions Pohl could not answer.
He stated very briefly and in short terms that Horn should go to Lublin first, take a look at the entire matter there on the spot, and then contact Globocnik.
Pohl said he did not want to be asked silly questions just as if he were a little school boy, by Herr Horn. He further said to Dr. Horn that he absolutely had a free-hand with the exception of very important decisions, upon which he should contact him and ask him about it.
Thereupon, as I stated before, Pohl left the office, aggravated as he was, and he told me to come along with him and report to him what I had found out at the Tutorship court, and what I had succeeded in getting through.
I would like to state one more sentence here; namely, the explanation as given by Georg Loerner was correct--not the one given by Dr. Hohberg. The questionnaire which is contained in the document book was neither seen by Herr Pohl nor by Herr Loerner, nor by myself. I only saw the questionnaire here while looking through those documents. Nor was it that Herr Horn had asked me to come to the conference, as stated by Dr. Hohberg--but rather Pohl had.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one forty-five.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 28 July 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal please, I shall submit the photostatic copy of Document NO-1290. There was some doubt what date was the correct on and I find it is either 22d First 1943 or 22d Eleventh 1943. From the photostatic copy I see that the date must be 22d January. May my secretary submit this document?
JUDGE MUSMANNO: What about the date of receipt? Is that January 30? There are two dates on the letter.
DR. GAWLIK: It was 22d of January or 22d of November. That was the point in dispute, the entry stamp.
THE PRESIDENT: Plainly there is a mistake on the original. It's dated 22d January 1943 and the date received 30th of November, 1943.
DR. GAWLIK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps it laid on somebody's desk for eleven months. I have known that to happen, but it probably is a mistake in the stamp, so the date 30th November is probably wrong. We will consider it as having been written 22 January 1943.
DR. GAWLIK: By that then you would have to assume 22d of November, Sir, because the entry stamp shows that date. There are two possibilities of a mistake: Either the date has been wrongly written, which may be the most obvious one, because otherwise the entry stamp would be wrong.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have no way to find out which was wrong. Perhaps it makes no different. Perhaps it isn't important.
DR. LEO VOLK - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. GAWLIK (Attorney for Defendant Volk):
Q Before the recess we discussed the meeting of 13 February about the Osti. Did you take part in that meeting?
A No, I did not say one word. Incidentally, apart from Dr. Horn, nobody spoke at all.
Q Please take Document NO-1270, Exhibit 161, which is in Volume XIX on page 5 of the Document Book.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Page what?
DR. GAWLIK: Page 5.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Does this document describe the meeting correctly?
A This document has not been signed by Dr. Horn; as far as I took part in the meeting, it only lasted a few minutes. This approximately, as I recall, give the contents more or less correctly. I must admit that Dr. Horn has somewhat colored this document, because he would have been reluctant to have written it all down -- just what happened -- because that would not have been very flattering to him.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: The witness testified that Document 1270 was not signed by Dr. Horn. The copy in the English Document Book is signed by Dr. Horn in Berlin on 13-2-43.
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, the photostatic copy does not have a signature. Here Dr. Horn has only been written in brackets. Had he signed it and the signature had been illegible, from the typewritten document one could have seen that Dr. Horn wrote it. That is how these things, or, at least, many things, were done in the WVHA, but this document was not signed by Dr. Horn. I have compared the photostatic copy.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Has the Secretary General the original photostatic copy, NO-1270? This very plainly shows it was signed.
The photostat shows signed on the typewriter in brackets.
THE WITNESS: Yes, that was the usual thing to do when a copy of any other document was finished. The name was put underneath in brackets so that if somebody has an illegible signature it becomes quite clear who had signed that document, but it has not actually been signed in this case.
BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q Who drew up the foundation contract for Osti?