That is why it is irrelevant to whom the visitors would have been sent in such a case.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, haven't many of the defendants testified that they were concerned about submitting reports of the morale of the population?
Haven't several of the defendants and hasn't your own defendant testified to that -- your own client?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:All right, now, listen, Dr. Gawlik. Dr. Gawlik, if you reflect on just what happened here, won't you conclude that Mr. Walton was really helping you in this particular case, not that I think he wants to help you generally?
Wasn't he sort of confirming what you have been insisting right along, that your client was interested only in drawing up reports of the morale in the population?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, Mr. Walton in this instance was really helping you, wasn't he?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes, that's why I consider this question irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT:That's right. You should consider it very good.
DR. GAWLIK:That is not the point, Your Honor, in the trial it depends on whether the question refers to something important or something irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, now, listen, Dr. Gawlik. Do you regard the obtaining of information on the morale of the population of a certain area in which a certain Einsatzkommando is operating important?
Do you regard that important?
DR. GAWLIK:For the work of the Einsatzgruppe, yes, but from a legal point of view no, because this is not a criminal act.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you want to exclude then everything that your client said about that?
DR. GAWLIK:No, not at all, Your Honor, not at all.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, then, that is one of your defenses, isn't it?
DR. GAWLIK:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, and Mr. Walton was talking about that very thing, about the getting of reports on the morale of the population.
DR. GAWLIK:That is just why this is irrelevant. It has already been clarified.
I do not see the purpose of the question.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you object to its being corroborated and helping your client a little bit?
DR. GAWLIK:In this case during the questioning of this witness, it is irrelevant.
I consider this question in this particular case concerning this witness irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT:Was it irrelevant when your client spoke about it?
DR. GAWLIK:Not in this case, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Then, why is it irrelevant now? It is still the same client.
DR. GAWLIK:I said, Your Honor, this is accumulative proof claimed by my client.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, then do we understand you, Dr. Gawlik, that you don't want another word said in this trial which my help your client a little bit more ?
DR. GAWLIK:I do not start from the assumption that questions by the prosecution are put in order to help my client.
THE PRESIDENT:No, but if accidentally he helps you, you don't have any quarrel with Mr. Walton, do you, about that?
Dr. GAWLIK: If the Tribunal holds the opinion that the answering of this question will help my client, then I withdraw my objection.
MR. WALTON:In order that I might have Dr. Gawlik feel a little better, I'll repeat my first general question, since we have given an example, and see if he can answer the general question I first put to him.
Q. (By Mr. Walton) If the kommando leader or a visitor came to Gruppen Staff Headquarters and stated his business and you knew that someone beside General Ohlendorf could help him or take care of the matter for him, my question is, would you disturb the General any way or would you take it upon yourself to refer him to the man who could help him certainly more quickly than the General could?
perhaps Dr. Gawlik won't object to that form of the question.
THE PRESIDENT:I think upon reconsideration now, he didn't object to the former question.
MR. WALTON:All right, Sir.
A.If a visitor had come, Mr. Walton, in every case I would have informed Herr Ohlendorf who was there what he wanted to discuss and then Herr Ohlendorf could have told me, "I have not time. Take the man to Herr Seibert, to Herr Ulrich," or to any other man. That would have depended on what the man wanted to discuss, but in every case I would have asked Herr Ohlendorf first. I would have told him about this man, even in the danger of being thrown out by Herr Ohlendorf myself. He wouldn't have done that at all, but I would not have assumed the authority and not let him see him on my own authority.
Q.Suppose General Ohlendorf arrived at his headquarters early that morning and he said, "Schubert, you are like St. Peter, standing outside the gates of heaven keeping them safe against the world. I am very busy this morning. I don't want to be disturbed. I have a lot of important things to do." Just about the time General Ohlendorf gets seated at his desk and deep in work, here comes a visitor. He wants to see General Ohlendorf. You question him about the nature of his business and you find out it is not quite as important as he thought it was and furthermore other people could handle the matter beside General Ohlendorf. Would you still go in, in spite of what General Ohelndorf said and disturb him and ask him if he wants to see this visitor or would you refer him to the one he wants to see?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, if I received these definite instructions to stop seeing visitors from seeing Herr Ohlendorf, I would have taken the man to Herr Seibert and said "This man really wants to see the boss, but the Chief has said he does not want to be disturbed and he is busy, would you please deal with the man." That would be the next best thing to do.
QNow, in your direct testimony yesterday, you stated that there was an unfortunate choice of language by Mr. Wartenberg used in your reference to Mr. Seibert and that you meant to say that Mr. Seibert was Chief of Department III and that he was deputy for the staff.
Now, that is correct, is it not?
AI did not hear I am sorry. -- I think it is all right now.
INTERPRETER:Would you repeat the question, please?
Q (By Mr. Walton) Yes, in your direct testimony yesterday, I believe you stated that there was an unfortunate choice of language which Mr. Wartenberg put in your affidavit; that what you meant to say was that Mr. Seibert was deputy for the Group Staff and not just Deputy of General Ohlendorf.
Did you make that statement yesterday, or words to that effect?
AYes. Mr. Prosecutors I said that Herr Seibert was the Deputy of Herr Ohlondorf in the Group Staff.
QYes, all right, now, I ask you do you recallsigning any affidavits while you were at Oberoesel?
AYes.
QAnd do you recall signing an affidavit to the effect that you listed the personnel and the duties of members of Einsatzgruppe D down through the kommando level?
AI don't remember any details, just now, but I did discuss it.
I was asked about it; What were the functions of the various officers?
That is 18 months ago. Now, I don't remember the details.
QIf you saw your signature though you would recognize it, if it appeared on such an affidavit, wouldn't you?
AOf course, Mr. Prosecutor.
MR. WALTON:Page, will you hand this to him?
(By Mr. Walton)
QNow, look at the signature on that document and tell me whose it is.
AThat is my signature, Mr. Prosecutor.
QAnd what date is given on that document?
AProbably the 7th of December is meant, but it might mean 1 December 1947.
QDecember 1945? You were at Oberoesel at that time?
AYes.
QNow, what is that document, Witness?
AMay I look at it first?
QCertainly. Certainly.
AIt is the organization of Einsatzgruppe D, as it says in the heading.
QAnd that is an affidavit on that subject by yourself?
AYes, it is made out as an affidavit.
QWhat title did you give the Defendant Seibert? What's on that affidavit as Seibert's title?
AIt says here as title of Herr Seibert, "Permanent Deputy."
Q "Permanent Deputy"?
AYes.
QSo 18 months apart you call Herr Seibert "the permanent deputy of General Ohlendorf" and yesterday you said that you didn't mean to say that, but you meant to say a deputy in the staff.
Now that is twice that you have called him "the permanent deputy."
Why did you change from your affidavit yesterday?
AMr. Prosecutor, I did not think of this affidavit and this wording "permanent deputy" which I had used before.
I didn't think of it at the moment, but I would like to add here that at the time I meant nothing and I could not have mant anything but what I said yesterday, because this wording, "permanent deputy" in my opinion can only refer to what I said yesterday, that Herr Seibert was the permanent deputy of Herr Ohlendorf in the staff of the Einsatzgruppe.
QThe way you have got it written up there it means "permanent Deputy," for all questions. You didn't specify that he was permanent deputy for the staff. You didn't specify that he was permanent deputy for economic questions. You just said the all-inclusive term,"personal deputy". Why didn't you make that addition to that paper?
AMr. Prosecutor, because at the time I did not know that possibly this statement might be misunderstood. If I had known that and if I had had the opportunity to explain it in more detail, I could not have explained it any differently at the time than I could have done yesterday here.
MR. WALTON:Page, will you return the copy?
May it please the Court, at the present time this document is being prepared for introduction into evidence. In view of the fact that there was no force here that purpose during the holidays, I am forced to be a little late. I trust that I shall offer this into evidence before the close of the cross-examination and certainly before the close of the day. I would like to reserve the right to introduce it formally into evidence at a later time.
THE PRESIDENT:Do you have a copy that you can hand to Dr. Koessl so that he can be informed of its contents?
MR. WALTON:I am sorry, Sir. That will come down with the others. I have only the copy which is my own. I have a copy, but not that I can serve on him.
THE PRESIDENT:Why not let him look at it even now.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Can you remember any orders given by Seibert that resulted in the execution of a person or persons?
AMr. Prosecutor, I do not know of any such orders.
QCould he have given such orders unknown to you?
AIt is difficult for me to say what Herr Seibert could have done without my knowledge.
QThe possibility exists, though, doesn't it?
THE PRESIDENT:I don't think that's a fair question. He says he doesn't know. He can't say what Seibert could have done. Seibert could have done anything and he could have done nothing.
MR. WALTON:I withdraw the question, Your Honor.
Q (By Mr. Walton) Was it known ahead of time in Group Headquarters that an execution was scheduled for a future time?
AI don't quite understand that question. I don't quite get the sense. May I have it again, please?
QWas it over known in the Staff Headquarters that two days later or a day later an execution was scheduled to take place at a certain time and on a certain location?
AWhether it was known in the Einsatzgruppe? May I remind you of the example I gave you yesterday? But on the whole, the Einsatzgruppe only heard about executions after they had been carried out and they heard this from the kommando; in this particular case which I mentioned yesterday there were special circumstances and therefore it had been known before.
QNow, here's the question that I should like you to answer: Was such information of general knowledge to the staff or was this information restricted to only certain ones of the staff?
AAre you now talking in general or are you referring to this one case I mentioned.
QEither one. What I had in mind was when advance information about an execution came into Staff Headquarters, I would like to know whether such information was known to everyone in the staff or only to the particular persons in the staff.
AMr. Prosecutor, this question I cannot answer. I never heard what might have been known. I don't know whether everyone in the staff heard about.
QWell, I'll amend the question. Was such information known by all the officers in the staff, the SS officers, or was it known only to General Ohlendorf and yourself?
AIt is very difficult for me to answer this question, because, except for the example in Simferopol, which I mentioned myself yesterday, I do not know any definite case where the Einsatzgruppe was informed beforehand of an execution. I really cannot say if such a case had occurred who, apart from Herr Ohlendorf, would have heard of it. Unforunately, I am not able to do this.
QI think you have answered the question. You have in effect said that as a general thing you only know of executions after they happened. However, if anyone would have known of their scheduled time the likelihood is that if General Ohlendorf knew and certainly a very few other people, possibly Ohlendorf himself alone, is that what you mean to say?
AMr. Prosecutor, theoretically the possibility exists that others apart from Herr Ohlendorf heard about it. For example, it is imaginable that in this case Herr Ohlendorf informed one of the officers on the staff to inspect, but it is merely an assumption, a theoretical assumption. I don't know any definite case except the case I described yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Walton, do you think this might be a suitable time at which to have a recess?
MR. WALTON:Yes.
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL:The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. LUMMERT:Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume. Your Honor, I ask the defendant Blume be excused from the session this afternoon and tomorrow morning so that he can prepare his documents.
THE PRESIDENT:In accordance with the request of counsel, the defendant Blume will be excused from attendance in Court this afternoon and tomorrow morning.
BY MR. WALTON:
QMr. Schubert, when General Ohlendorf ordered you to make the inspection of the execution which you saw in the neighborhood of Simferopol you did not think it was an unusual occasion to receive such an order from him, did you?
AWell, I may correct this first of all. Herr Ohlendorf did not give me the order to carry out inspections of executions as it was translated but he gave me one specific order of one inspection and that I could have thought it funny I don't understand that at all.
MR. WALTON:The translation came through "funny".
THE PRESIDENT:Well, I think that is used in the sense of strange.
MR. WALTON:Well, my question to him was that when he received this order from General Ohlendorf he didn't think it was a particularly unusual occurrence and I didn't quite understand his answer. If the Tribunal is satisfied
THE PRESIDENT:No, you may put the question again. BY MR. WALTON:
QMr. Schubert, did you think that General Ohlendorf's order to you about this execution was an unusual one?
AIt was very strange for me, yes.
QDid it occur to you why you were selected to watch this execution?
AThat wasn't very difficult for me, Mr. Prosecutor. There wasn't any one else there at that time. All the other people were occupied in carrying out the execution and Herr Ohlendorf had no other choice but to give the order to me.
QThen if no one else was there at the group headquarters you sometimes were the personal representative of General Ohlendorf, weren't you?
AMr. Prosecutor, I would like to draw a clear distinction here between the purely legalistic term deputy and the fact that anyone whom Herr Ohlendorf sent anywhere is sort of a delegate or representative. One can call it a deputy but it is not the same.
QI don't know what the German word was but certainly for this one execution you were the personal representative of General Ohlendorf, that is true, isn't it?
AI didn't consider myself as such. I got an order from Mr. Ohlen dorf.
I carried out this order but I never was the personal representa tive of Herr Ohlendorf, not even in this case.
QNow, witness, I don't wish to argue with you but you remarked that you were the only person available in staff headquarters to attend this execution as General Ohlendorf's representative.
Now my next question was, certainly for this execution then you were his personal representa tive.
AI am sorry, but I cannot agree with you. I am of a different opinion.
I was not the representative of Ohlendorf the way you under stand it.
I was sent out to carry an order and I did so and I cannot explain it any other way.
Furthermore, and I would like to mention this too, the staff, the persons in the staff, was so small that actual ly there was no one else there who could have carried out this order.
That's why I got it and otherwise I wouldn't have gotten this order.
QWe will return to this question in a minute. Did you ever carry out any orders given to you by Seibert?
ACertainly I carried out things which Seibert requested me for.
QDid his requests or orders concern, ever concern, the general business of the group?
AI don't know what you mean - general business of the group. I can't quite comprehend it.
Do you mean the orderly room?
QNo. Did these orders ever affect these orders of Seibert ever affect the group as a whole?
ACertainly not the entire group. They could have only affected whatever was done in the group staff.
QDid they ever concern the day to day - the usual - business that happened every day in the staff?
AI don't know any such orders.
QDid any of Seibert's orders ever concern security questions?
ADo you mean executive measures or do you mean security of the office, or what?
QI mean the security -- Well, either one. Answer them both. Did they ever concern security measures of the office?
AThere were no such orders. I don't know of any such orders.
QDid they ever concern security questions that affected the whole Einsatzgruppe D?
AI don't know of any such orders either.
QDid they ever concern security questions of the group staff?
AI think that question was put once before. I cannot imagine anything by this and I don't know any such orders.
I don't know what I an to understand by them.
QThe answer then is you don't know of any such orders. Did they ever concern executive measures to be taken?
ANo.
QBut you do say that he gave you orders and instructions at different times?
AI said that certainly I carried out things which Seibert requested me to do.
QAll right. Now then let's turn to Document Book I, page 108 in the English text, 141 in the German text.
It is your affidavit again, Document NO-3055 and is Prosecution Exhibit 28. Will you indicate when you have found, if you desire to do so, this document in Document Book I.
AI have it here in front of me, yes.
QNow, according to your affidavit you left the group headquarters and went to the Gypsy quarters in Simferopol in obedience to an order of General Ohlendorf to be his official witness at this execution.
Is that right?
That's paragraph 4, Your Honors.
AMr. Prosecutor, I didn't leave Simferopol for this occasion. It says here I went into the Gypsy quarter of the city - that is within the city.
QWell, you misunderstood the question - you left the group headquarters for there?
AYes, I left the building of the group staff -
QDid you proceed first to the headquarters of the office of Kommando 11-B on the way to the Gypsy quarter?
ANo. I had no order to do so.
QYou proceeded directly to the Gypsy quarter of Simferopol from your own office, is that correct?
AYes, from the staff I went to the Gypsy quarter.
QHow far approximately was the Gypsy quarter of the city from your headquarters?
AAbout a five minute walk.
QWhen you got there, I believe you testified, that the first thing you saw was that German personnel were engaged in loading these people on trucks, is that correct?
AI had to inspect the way the trucks were loaded and the gather ing at this place. That is what I had to inspect. There was a roll call and then in certain intervals they were transported away from there by trucks. I was to supervise this incident.
QDid you get there in time?
AMay I say something more. It was translated "supervise". My whole struggle is to make that clear. I apologize, but it should be: "to look at". I was to look at it.
QIf you remember my question I asked you when you arrived at the loading site what was the first thing you saw - what was the first thing that caught your eye. Now you have answered that question and I accept your amendment that the first thing you saw was the roll call being taken, that is correct, is it not?
AThe first impression I saw was a large number of people collected there, that is the first thing I saw. Then there were some trucks there. There were guards and I also saw how people were loaded on trucks and how the trucks left.
QWere you there when the first truck was loaded with these people?
ANo.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Walton, did I understand you to say that he said there was a roll call.
MR. WALTON:Your Honor, I suppose we must check back with the court stenographer.
THE PRESIDENT:Well in his enumeration now of the things which he saw the roll call was not mentioned. BY MR. WALTON:
QI will ask the question again. Was there a roll call taken of these people gathered at this loading site before they climbed on the trucks?
AI said that these people's names were read off. Well, that's a roll call. I don't know whether you call it such but it was a control which was carried out.
QNow the question I am interested in and I believe you answered it in the negative - were you there when the first truck was loaded? Did I understand you to say you were not?
AMr. Prosecutor, I knew that some transports had already left this place and what I saw was not the beginning of it. I came in the middle of it.
THE PRESIDENT:Witness, do you know who made up the list which was being read?
AI cannot say, Your Honor, I don't know. BY MR. WALTON:
QNow, Mr. Schubert, about how many German personnel were engaged in loading these people on these trucks?
AI estimate those German people at about 25 but perhaps this is too high but approximately 20.
QWas Dr. Braune there when you got there?
ANo, I didn't see Dr. Braune on that day at all, When I returned from this order to the Group Staff I saw Dr. Braune again because Kommando 11-B was in the same building with us.
QWhat was the name of the SS-Sturmbannfuehrer that you stated yesterday in your direct examination who was in charge of this operation?
AI spoke of a Sturmbannfuehrer and I meant Sturmbannfuehrer Schulz of Kommando 11-B.
QNow you also mentioned the fact that two Hauptsturmfuehrers, SS Hauptsturmfuehrers were present. What were their names if you know?
AMr. Prosecutor, I am not sure whether I wouldn't give a wrong name. I thought that one of these captains was Captain Gabel, commanding officer of the Police Company, but it is possible that I am wrong and that it might have been his successor, the name of whom I don't recall. I don't remember this fact so exactly that I could take it upon my conscience to say Gabel or someone else. Perhaps both of them were there but I cannot say with certainty.
QWell, can you remember who the other man was, the other Hauptsturmfuehrer?
AThe other captain was as far as I know the sub-Kommando leader of Kommando 10-A which had been in Simferopol from the beginning and later was subordinated to Kommando 11-B but unfortunately I cannot give you the name of this man. I don't remember.
QAnd did I understand you to say that these three officers were present at the loading site when you got there?
ANo, Mr. Prosecutor -
QWell, answer the question - what other officer besides yourself was present during the loading phase while you were there?
AI remember exactly that officers were present, one first lieutenant of the police and there was another SS-first lieutenant and I think those were the two officers who were present at that place.
QNow, Mr. Schubert, was there an officer in charge of these enlisted men who were loading these people on the truck?
AThese were essentially members of the regular police company there, at that moment, in any case they were under command of the 1st lieutenant of the Police Company.
QYou mean the loading squad was under the command of a lieutenant of the Police Company?
AYes.
QNow approximately how many trucks were used to transport these people to the execution site?
AMr. Prosecutor, I cannot tell you exactly. I didn't see all the trucks at Once.
But I recall the fact that the Army furnished us with a large number of trucks for this operation and to the best of my recollection I would estimate them at 25.
QHow long did this loading phase take,that is, to get these 7 or g hundred people in the trucks and get them away from the loading site?
Approximately hour long, how much time did it take?
AMr. Prosecutor, I cannot tell you this from my own knowledge. I wasn't there during the entire time of the transportation.
I was only there for a short time and during that time only a few trucks left this place.
These vehicles were sent off in intervals. I can not say how long a time the entire loading process took.
I can merely say that in the early afternoon I passed this place once more and that it was almost completed by that time.
QYou say that they were loaded at intervals - about how long an interval between the arrival of a truck and the departure of a loaded truck?
AI cannot even answer that question. I merely saw trucks that left the place and I can't say whether a truck that had returned was carrying a load.
I can't really say.
QBut can you give us an approximation or an opinion of how long it took to call off the names of these people, enter the turck, and the truck toke off from the time it was empty until it was filled?
AI have no possibility of estimating. You can do it quickly Or you can do it slowly.
I don't know how long it takes until you have read a list of 25 names end load these 25 people on the truck and lot them go.
It all depends how the these things are carried out.
QWere these Gypsy transported in open trucks or closed trucks?
AAs far as I remember these were trucks which were covered with tarpallin, regular covered trucks.
QHow many guards were on each truck besides the driver?
AAside of the driver whom the Army had furnished with the truck there was an assistant driver.
This was customary in the Army and in the back of the truck there was at least one guard.
QWas he armed?
A yes, yes, he was armed.
QWhat arms did he carry?
ACertainly that varied. He might have carried a pistol, he might have carried a rifle or a machine pistol, but certainly it varied.
QDid these Gypsies enter these trucks Willingly?
AI don't think that they went there gladly in any case.
QI don't mean that - did these guards have to force them up the ramp and into the trucks or did the loading squad have to force them up the ramp and into the truck?
ANo, there was no cause to do so or to use force.
QThey walked up the ramp and into the body of the truck under their own power, in that right?
AWell, they were called up and they were told that they were to board the truck and they did so.
THE PRESIDENT:Did the Gypsies know at that time what was going to happen?
AI don't think so, Your Honor, at that point they didn't.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, when you remarked that they didn't do it gladly the natural assumption was that they knew what was in store for them.
ANo, Your Honor, their fate was not quite certain. It was uncertain and I meant to express this uncertainty.
They knew some change was to take place.
BY MR. WALTON: Witness, how long did you personally remain at this loading site in the Gypsy quarter?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
A.In any case I was not there longer than twenty minutes.
It was sufficient for me to stay there a short time in order to see how these things were carried out.
Q.Now, Mr. Schubert, you said when you first left Einsatzgruppe D headquarters you walked for five minutes down to the site of the execution, I am sorry, site of the loading.
A.I drove, Mr. Prosecutor, but I needed five minutes for that.
Q.Oh, a five-minute drive in an automobile?
A.Yes, yes.
Q.Well then, you probably have answered my next question.
I presume you went in your own car from the loading site to look at or observe what took place at the execution site.
You had your own transportation between these two Places, did you not?
A.I had a car of the office. One was assigned to me for that occasion.
I used it.
Q.Now, did your take the same route that the trucks took in your car when you went from the loading site to the execution site?
A.I cannot tell you definitely because I didn't escort any of the trucks, but I think I drove down the same road.
There was no other possibility.
Q.Do you know whether or not these people created any disorder on the journey from the loading site to the Execution site?
A.I know nothing about that, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q.On the arrival of the trucks at the execution site, who placed these people in the anti-tank ditch?
A.Those were members of this execution kommando who had been ordered to carry out the execution.
They were mem bers of the regular police and also members of the SS formation, SD, or state police men of Einsatzgruppe D.
Q.What was the rank of the man in charge of the execution kommando?
A.That was Sturmbannfuehrer Schulz.
Q.And it was at his command that these people Were placed in the anti-tank ditch, is that right?
A.Well, he certainly didn't order it again and again in every case, out he distributed the men under his command for definite jobs and these officers and men then carried out those jobs.
Q.Now, this execution squad, I believe you state in your affidavit, were armed with automatic weapons and rifles, is that right?
A.They were armed with rifles and partly With machine pistols, yes. I don't know whether I said in the affidavit - yes, yes, so it says here.
Q.Now, was each truckload of these gypsies executed on arrival?
A.Mr. Prosecutor, I myself saw only one such transport out I may assume that every preceding and further transport took place in the same way as the one that I Saw.
Q.Did you, on arrival at the execution site, get out of your car, walk over to the anti-tank ditch and look in it?
A.Later, out first of all I stopped at the road and saw something different which took place there, namely the way they were unloaded and the way the valuables were registered.
Q.We will come back to the valuables in just a moment. You stated that you saw these people unloaded. Was there any disorder among the truckload of people when they were ordered to get out of the truck at the execution site?
A.No.