MR. WALTON:I appreciate the fact, your Honor, and since it is such thin ground, I wish to be entirely ethical in the matter.
I leave the evaluation of the testimony as against the actual affidavit so far as its probative value to the court, where it belongs.
Now, if your Honor please, I wish at this time to follow a state ment which I made this morning concerning the introduction of the signed affidavit of the defendant and present witness, Heinz Schubert.
I be lieve the record will show that later on during the day I was to Intro duce this affidavit.
Diligent Inquiry has resulted in the fact that this is the only signed copy available.
A check with the document room shows that.
Therefore, the Prosecution will have to reprocess this doc ument.
However, I now move that the German copy be introduced and that an exhibit number be reserved for this document and that when the court has the English copy that can be followed by the court, that counsel re serve its objection to such time.
I will serve notice on all interested counsel that the document is in the proper form for introduction, but I would, since it is the only copy available, put it in the archives of the court with its proper exhibit number.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, well then you may ask that an exhibit num ber be assigned to it, or perhaps you already know the present exhibit number, or Mr. Hab can tell you.
SECRETARY (MR. Nab): 193.
THE PRESIDENT:Has Mr. Nab furnished the number?
SECRETARY (Mr. Nab): 193.
MR. WALTON:Your Honors, at this time I offer, subject to ob jection by the defense, Document No. 5111 as Prosecution's Exhibit 193, with the reservation which the court has so kindly allowed me to have.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, the Exhibit number will be assigned but the exhibit is actually act before the Tribunal until the necessary transla tions are made and copies are furnished to all the parties concerned.
MR. WALTON:At this time, your Honor, the Prosecution has no fur ther questions,except I should like very much to thank the witness for his cooperation with the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well, Dr. Koessel, do you have any redirect Examination.
WITNESS HEINZ SCHUBERT:May I say something, your Honor, before Mr. Koessel starts?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, by all means.
WITNESS HEINZ SCHUBERT:First of all, I would like to defend my attorney as far as the point which was discussed before is concerned.
My attorney actually did ask Mr. Wartenberg in the cress examination whether in the interrogation transcript of Mr. Wartenberg there were remarks in it to the effect that a discussion took place about this.
"The tran scription shows that I wanted to make corrections.
" I would like to print out merely that Mr. Walton objected to Mr. Wartenberg should have to answer this question and it was said that the defendant Schubert can clarity any etails which happened in the interrogation later.
But this possibility did not occur until yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT:I want to say, Witness, that your apprenticeship in a lawyer's office has developed to be a great assistance to you in your trial.
DR.KOESSL: your Honor, my colleague, Dr. Aschenauer, has asked me to put two questions which have come up in this cross examination, and I would like to ask these for Dr. Aschenauer with the permission of the court.
THE PRESIDENT:You may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION QUESTIONS BY DR. KOESSL
Q.Witness, concerning the question of the prosecutor whether Braune and Nosske's successor received directives outside of these given by Ohlendorf; I would like to ask you, do you know specifically that Braune and Nosske and Nosske's successor received instructions from Ohlendorf?
A.No, I do not Know this specifically at all.
Q.Furthermore, do you know the contents of the discussion between two officers and Ohlendorf and Nosske? Do you know it specifically?
A.No.
DR. KOESSL:I personally have only a few questions.
Q.First of all, was Ohlendorf, On the day on which you were in Simferopel, or, rather, on the day when you witnessed the execution in Simferopel, was Ohlendorf himself in Simferopel on that day?
A.Yes.
Q.What did Ohlendorf do on that day?
A.I was not with Herr Ohlendorf at that time. I can not say. I merely heard that Herr Ohlendorf too inspected this execution on that day.
DR. KOESSL:Thank you, your honor, I have no further questions.
DR. GAWLIK:Gawlik for Seibert. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q.Witness, I submit to you once more exhibit 193 , Document no. 5111.
WITNESS:Which book please, Dr. Gawlik?
Q.Please read out what it says under Roman numeral VIII, the first word.
A. "Einsatzgroup Staff."
Q.But what does it say about the co-defendant Seibert?
A. "Permanent representative."
Q.To what did that statement "permanent representative" refer?
A.To the "Einsatz Group Staff," because that is where it appears.
MR. WALTON:I want to object to that question and the answer by the defendant on the grounds that the document itself is the highest and best evidence, and that anything that he should say in answer to that question would be his opinion, when it is up to the Tribunal itself to evaluate the probative value of the document.
We do not have a copy of that, your Honor.
That is the Document No. 5111, which I just spoke About.
DR. GAWLIK:Your Honor, I have this to say. In general the doc ument is the best piece of evidence, but not when an affidavit is given.
Then the witness is the best proof, because only the witness can say what he meant to express and what he actually wanted to say.
MR. WALTON:Perhaps the translation was wrong, but that wasn't the question which came over the first time--the one I objected to.
THE PRESIDENT:Let us have the question again, Dr. Gawlik, please.
MR. WALTON:The Prosecution is perfectly aware that Dr. Gawlik can ask this witness what he meant when he wrote it, or what was in his mind when he wrote it, what he intended to say, but in my humble opin ion, sirs, is that he can net ask him, "what does that document mean now?"
or "What does one gather from thatdocument?" or "what does it say?"
The *---* The witness can make a statement in Which he says, "I ride on a black horse."
Then he could say later on, "I really meant I ride on a write horse."
Then it is up to the listener to de termine whether it was a black or a white horse.
You get in to the realm of what is probable and what is logical.
Would a man say he rode on a black horse when he meant a white horse?
But every person is en titled to explain what he said and what he did.
The reasonableness of the explanation always being in the hands and in the mind of the per son who has to adjuicate the declaration, so that Dr. Gawlik is al lowed to ask that question.
MR. WALTON:Your Honor, as I pointed out, we have no object ion to his asking what he meant when he wrote it, which follows your very well put example, but Dr. Gawlik asked him, "What did the docu ment say?"
That is what I object to --That form.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, let's have the question again.
DR. GAWLIK:I merely wanted to say the following: your Eonor It is the same question which the prosecutor has asked.
Therefore, I also ask that the question of the Prosecutor be stricken from the record, because the Prosecutor submitted the document to the witness and had him read from it, "a permanent representative." Then that is also admissible.
THE PRESIDENT:Well, whatever Mr. Walton was permitted to do, you are permitted to do, so no one is hurt. So put the question, Dr. Gawlik.
Q (By Dr. Gawlik) What did you mean to express by the statement, "Seibert, Permanent Representative."
AI mean to express by this phrasing, what I actually expressed was what was the actual case. Seibert was the Permanent Representative in the Group Staff of Einsatgruppe D.
QI how far was Seibert not the permanent representative?
AHe was not the permanent representative beyond the sphere of the Einsatzgruppe Staff.
QWas Seibert the permanent representative within the Group?
ANo.
QDoes this phrasing come from you? Did you dictate that yourself?
AI typed it up myself without anyone telling me what to write. It is a completely voluntary statement.
QIn your cross-examination you have testified that Seibert had passed on letters to the kommando leaders when Ohlendorf was absent, is that correct?
Did I understand you correctly?
AI don't know whether I said passed on " or whether I said that Herr Seibert, during Ohlendorf absence, dispatched letters to the various kommandos.
QDo you know what kind of letters these were, what contents they had?
ANo, I don't know any more today.
QDid these letters refer to any kind of execution measures, especially to the execution of Jews, Gypsies, Communist functionaries?
AI know of no such letters.
QYou have further stated in your cross_examination that in Ohlendorf's absence the kommando leaders discussed matters with Herr Seibert. Did I understand you correctly?
AI think so, yes.
QDo you know what kind of matters these were which the kommando leaders discussed with Seibert?
ANo, I wasn't present.
QDid Seibert have any power of command towards the kommando leader?
AAs far as I know, he had no power of command.
QYou also stated in your cross-examination that the execution in Simferopol was the only one which had been previously known in the Group Staff. Did I understand you correctly?
ANo, not quite. I cannot say, of course, anything about the time before I got there, but during my own time there I don't remember any second case.
QWas Seibert then with the Group Staff?
ANo, he was not there at that time.
QWhere was Seibert at the time?
AHe was in Berlin on furlough.
DR. GAWLIK:Thank you. I have no further question.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
QWitness, we've allowed counsel frequently to ask an irrelevant question so the Tribunal is going to avail itself of that privilege and ask an entirely irrelevant question:
Were your forebearers related to Franz Peter Schubert?
AYou mean the composer, Schubert?
QNot directly, but there is one branch which can be traced to that line, yes.
QI presume you are quite proud of the fact that you can trace in some way a connection back to that great figure in musical history.
AYour Honor, I am certainly proud of the fact that I have a relationship to a great German, yes.
QWas he a German or an Austrian?
AHe was a German.
QWell, as I say, this is entirely irrelevant, but your name just naturally aroused that curiosity.
Witness, going back to this affidavit which has caused a great deal of discussion, we wonder how the name Seibert ever got into this affidavit, unless you used it yourself in your discussion with Wartenberg, referring to Paragraph 3.
MR. WALTON:Your Honor, will you give the document number, please.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, the document number is 3055 Q (By the president) Did you mention the name to Wartenberg?
AYour Honor, I am not quite certain and I said that yesterday too whether in the interiorrogation of the 18th of February, which lead to this affidavit whether I mentioned the name of Seibert. It is even possible that is used this phrasing, "Ohlendorf or Seibert" at the moment, but that I corrected myself later on after I thought about the contents of the interrogation quite thoroughly and at that time it occured to me quite suddenly again that Herr Seibert was not there at that time.
QCan you still tell us, but very briefly just what were your duties as an Adjutant?
AWitness: With the Einsatzgruppe, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, yes.
AI said yesterday already that as Adjutant my duties were not very extensive. As chief of the orderly room I had much more to do and the designation of Adjutant I only listed in order not to be suspected of omitting one of my jobs; I only had to make the appointments, to receive the visitors, and occasionally to furnish maps for the Commanding General for his trips, to mark down the route, and to make out accounts of trips and I think that those were all my duties as an Adjutant. Of course, I fullfilled a few private requests of Herr Ohlendorf, but I would like to repeat once again what I said yesterday. Herr Ohlendorf did not like any kind of servants around him. Thus I was not his valet, but I did do a few personal things for him and then I was also given the direction of the orderly room.
QVery well. Coming back to the affidavit, Document No. 3055, and calling attention to paragraph 4, we will ask, were the persons who were to be taken out of the gypsy quater informed that they were to be resettled? Is that what they were told?
AI do not know for certain what these people were told, but I think I must answer this question in the affirmative in this case, because that was customary, generally.
QYes, if they were going to be resettled then that would mean that the entire family in each instance would be resettled, wouldn't it?
AYes, Your Honor.
QYes. Then that would mean that the women and children would go along also, wouldn't it?
AYes, Your Honor, as far as they were available, yes.
QThen, were women and children actually taken to the execution Place?
AI said today, Your Honor, that personally saw no women and no children at the execution site, but at the place where they were gathered there were women and children.
QAnd some were loaded aboard trucks?
AYes, Your Honor.
QIt just happaened then when you got to the execution site that there were no women and children there actually being executed or being prepared for execution
AAt that moment there was none.
QYes. Now, Witness, you have indicated, have you, all the corrections which you desire to make in this affidavit? have you?
AYes, Your Honor. I think I have said all about them I wanted to say.
QNow we will call your attention again to that paragraph 4. I will read, " I went to the gypsy quarter of Simferopol and Supervised"-
and we understand your correction of that word -- "the loading of the persons who were to be shot into a truck. I took care that the loading was completed as quickly as possible and that there were no disturbances and unrest by the native population."
Now, I call your attention to the phrase, "took care."
AYour Honor, I think I said yesterday that in place of this phrasing "I took care" it should say, "I convinced myself of the fact, because actually there was nothing for me to take care of.
QYou were present, at least, at one loading, weren't you?
AYes.
QAnd did you direct them loading and see that it was done in a proper manner?
ANo, Your Honor, I did not have that order. Two offices were Present for that purpose who did these things.
QNow, the phrase in the German is, -- I know I won't pronounce it correctly, "Icj sorgte dafuer," yes, now that translated into English is, "I took care," which very clearly indicates that you were concerned about seeing that it was done properly. It was more than merely watching, but you were careful to see that it was done properly. "I took care". How can you now limit it to merely watching.
THE WITNESS:Your Honor, Mr. Wartenberg phrased this , and it is One of the many wordings which I objected to , because Mr. Wartenberg was evidently of the intention to represent my activity in this as supervisory capacity. That is why he chose this wording "I took care", although there was nothing for me to take care of.
THE PRESIDENT:This morning, witness, when you were given the opportunity to enumerate one by one the corrections which you wished to make in the affidavit, you called our attention to "supervise" and so on, but we don't recollect that you corrected this phrase "I took case."
THE WITNESS:Your Honor, I do not know at the mount whether I said it or not, but I think that I did say it. If it was not said then it is because so much has been said about these things that I had lost track of it at the moment, but I would be grateful if my explanation would be accepted on this particular point, too.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. Now you went to substitute for that phrase "I convinced myself", is that right?
THE WITNESS:The text would then have to be re-transposed in the German, but the sense would remain the same. "I convinced myself of the loading, etc. . ."
THE PRESIDENT:Yes.
QNow Ohlendorf sent you on this mission, didn't he?
AYes.
QNow do you suppose he sent you down there just so that you, yourself, could be just convinced?
AOnly for the purposes to acquaint or convince myself of the manner in which these matters were carried out.
QWell, suppose that you were not convinced, what would have happened?
AYour Honor, in an emergency case I would have had to interfere in whatever manner I could have. I would then have had to point out the violations against orders to these officers.
QSo that in effect "you took care" of it, didn't you?
AYour Honor, I don't know whether one should interpret it that way.
THE PRESIDENT:Dr. Koessl, do you have any other questions to put to the witness?
DR. KOESSL:No, Sir, I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT:Judge Dixon calls our attention to a phrase in paragraph 3-B, or perhaps it is 3-C, after discussing the collection of moneys, jewels, and so forth, then we come to a sentence or clause which reads: "To supervise" and of course we understand your explanation of "supervise", "that the execution be completed in the most humane and military manner possible". Now just what did you mean by "humane execution". THE WITNESS: Your Honor, I knew the order Ohlendorf concerning the manner of the actual shooting. There was only way one could call humane under these circumstances, that is, the form of shooting by a military execution squad under the orders of the military officer. This type of execution is what was meant.
QAnd that is what you mean by "Humane manner"?
AYes, Your Honor.
QIn paragraph 6 you said: "I know that was of the greatest importance to Ohlendorf to have the persons who were to be shot killed in the most humane and military manner possible, because otherwise in other methods of killing, the moral strain would have been too great for the execution squad". What were the other methods of killing?
AThat is meant purely theoretically, Your Honor. It might mean the execution of individuals by one individual person outside of the military squad, as I have described it.
QI see.
AIn the individual actions, on the individuals own authority.
QThen in paragraph 5 we find the sentence: "I watched that none of the deposited items were kept by the SS and the ORPO-men who were designated for the collection." Was there danger that some of the SS and ORPO-men might have purloined some of these articles, kept them for their own use?
AYour Honor, I was of the opinion then and I am today that these things were always correctly conducted, but no one can look into the soul of each individual, and that is how this order came to be made to me, to see to it that great care was taken, and if something like that would happen, that this would exclude such occurrances which actually didn't happen, and I never heard anything about it.
QThat question imported whether you looked into their pockets and not their souls?
AYour Honor, I didn't look into the pockets of these people, but from the way in which these things were carried out, there was no doubt for me to say that these things were correctly carried out, that such things didn't happen
QAnd if it was done, you didn't catch them at it?
AYour Honor, I don't know what happened when I was not present, think so, however.
QWould you say that their sense of honor was too great to cause them to participate in petty thievery of this character?
AYour Honor, I have no cause to doubt the correct handling of this matter.
QWitness, can you explain and this is purely in a philosophical field, how you can distinguish between the high honor of not taking a piece of money, or ring, or watch, and the killing of a person who is utterly defenseless?
AYour Honor, killing had been ordered but any possible confiscation of any property from these victims was prohibited. This was first of all the basic difference.
QNow, no one of the individual involved would think of stealing from the Reich, but there is nothing wrong in seeing or in taking these personal belongings from these defenseless people?
AYour Honor, I went to say about all these men who had anything to do with these matters, I went to explain that I am convinced without being able to say this just with certainty for everyone, that I do not believe that there was any elements among us who did not consider these things just as sacred for the carrying out of the Fuehrer's Orders, as they could be sacred to human beings.
QWere you ordered to take the money and valuables?
AThose persons were requested to hand over the valuables they had with then.
QDid the Fuehrer Order include the confiscation of personal property of those who were to be executed
AI can not say, Your Honor. I do not know whether this was one part of the Fuehrer Order, or whether these were executive regulations pertaining to the Fuehrer Order.
QNothing would have prevented the taking of the property, and handing them back to others legally entitled to them upon the decease of the owner?
AYour Honor, I know of the regulation of the .Reich Security Main Office which referred to these valuables, and this regulation provided that these valuables were to be sent to Berlin to be handed over to the Reich Finance Ministry. Other regulations on which this directive was based are not known to me. I could not say anything about it.
THE PRESIDENT:Very Well.
DR. KOESSL:Your Honor, may I ask a question.
THE PRESIDENT:Certainly.
DR. KOESSL:May I consider the examination of the witness closed, and may I consider with him this evening.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes, by all means. Dr. Hoffmann, do you have something to say?
DR. HOFFMANN:Your Honor, I have a very short motion to make. The Tribunal will recollect that the defendant Nosske said in the witness stand that in the year of 1944 as the result of his resistance in Duesseldorf he was excluded from the SS. The defendant Nosske haws further informed me that this also brought in its wake his exclusion from the Nazi Party. In order to bring proof of this, I would like to get the personnel file of the defendant Nosske, which is in the Document Center in Berlin, and, I ask the Tribunal to instruct the Secretary General that he obtain this file from the Document Center in Berlin.
MR. WALTON:We have not charged him in the Indictment with membership in the Nazi Party. I don't see where that is material. We charged him with being in a Criminal organization, the Gestapo the SS, and, it may be the SD, I am not sure about that, but we have not charged him with being a member of Nazi party as a criminal act, so I think his request is immaterial.
DR. HOFFMANN:Your Honor, if I can gather from Mr. Walton's statement that he does not contest that the defendant Nosske was excluded from the SS in 1944, then, of course, I would not need this card from there, but if he does contest it then I need the card to support my contention.
THE PRESIDENT:If you are willing to admit for the record that if the card were obtained it would show what Dr. Hoffmann said, then there would be no need to get then card.
That is the first thing you must decide. Then after you have decided that either in the affirmative or the negative, then we will go to the next thing.
MR. WALTON:That document including the SS personnel file was here at the beginning of this trial under the protecting wing of one, colonel Neil. The Tribunal at that time ruled that any comparison to be made of the document presented by the Prosecution in its case in chief would be compared at that time, and that would be the only time. They stayed here, and the opportunity originally of scrutining the personnel file when it was here, and now I think it is putting too great a burden on this court to have one of those files returned here for further scrutiny.
THE COURT:Mr. Walton, do you consider it material or immaterial, and are you basing your ob jection on the fact that defense counsel once had the opportunity to obtain this document, and not having availed himself of the opportunity, his time is now passed.
MR. WALTON:If Your Honor decides against my first objection, that it is immaterial, then I base it on the second prong of the objection, that it was here.
DR. HOFFMANN:Your Honor, it is correct that the personnel file of the defendant Nosske was submitted here, but the personnel file only showed that a proceeding was ins tituted against him because of military disobedience in the year of 1944, or rather that a proceeding pended against him, but * the personnel file did not show that the defendant Nosske, as he stated in the witness stand, actually was excluded. Why this was not noted down is a question of argumentation, I think, which I can bring in my final pleading, but in Order to support my argument, I would like to have documentary proof, and as a defense counsel I have no way of being admitted to the document center, therefore, I ask the Tribunal for assistance.
THE PRESIDENT:With regard to the materiality of the document asked for, we will say as we have said before, that when a defense counsel believes a certain piece of evidence is material, we are disposed to allow it, and we even went so far as to say that we will permit any evidence of any kind up to the social life of penguins in the Anarctic Zone. And if you can show that even that is relevant, we will permit you to introduce a document so show just how the Penguins live in the Anarctic Zone. So, therefore, we will rule in effect on the materiality, because you say it is material, and, in regard to the second feature, we would never penalize an attorney because he overlooked doing something which in the interest of his client he could have done. Now if you didn't get the document when it was here, that is no reason why you should not have it now, so the Tribunal will direct the Defense Information Center to obtain that document, if it is obtainable so that you may use it in the defense of your client.
Anything further?
THE PRESIDENT:The Tribunal will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30 O'clock.
THE MARHSAL:The Tribunal is now in recess until 0930 hours, 7 January 1948.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 7 January 1948)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Otto Ohlendorf, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 7 January 1948, 0930 - 1630, Justice Michael A. Musmanno, Presiding.
THE MARSHAL:Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II 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 defendant Graf will be taken to the witness stand.
DR. DURCHHOLZ:Durchholz for Schulz.
Your Honr, I ask your approval of introducing my Document III for Schulz before the defendant Graf enters the witness stand. I need the exhibits for my trial brief which I shall submit shortly to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT:Yes. Very well, you may proceed.
DR. DURCHHOLZ:So that the names and numbers in my documents appear correctly in the transcript, I would like to give the interpreters and the court reporters a written copy of my document list here.
May I have reference to the index that I have already submitted to the Tribunal when I submitted Document Books I and II on the 17th of November, 1947. This index is on Page 2448 in the English transcript and in the German transcript on Page 2500. In Document Book III too, in the English as well as in the German text, the page numbers are the same.
I now submit and offer:
As far as Point II of my index is concerned these are activities which refer to the activity of the defendant Schulz as a police official and police officer in Bremen during the years 1923 to 1939.
THE PRESIDENT:Would you kindly suspend just for a moment until we receive our copies of the document? We didn't know, of course, that you were going to read this.
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have one English copy. If the Tribunal would like to have this copy I will hand it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT:We are getting copies for the entire Tribunal.
I trust that all other defense counsel have their document books ready to present because we are now approaching the termination of the trial and we don't want any congestion in the translation and reproduction divisions. We would also suggest -- all the defense counsel are not here but you might pass the word around -- that there is no reason why they couldn't begin on the preparation of their final arguments.
You may proceed, please.
DR. DURCHHOLZ:May I repeat briefly that as far as Point II of my index is concerned, I will submit documents which refer to the activity of the defendant Schulz as a police official and police officer in Bremen during the years 1923 to 1939. On page 190 as Exhibit No. 63, Document No. 65. This is the affidavit of the Police Inspector, Otto Kay. On Page 192 as Exhibit No. 64 the Document No. 66.
THE PRESIDENT:With which book are you now dealing?
DR. DURCHHOLZ:Document Book III, your Honor, Document books 1 and 2 have already been submitted by me.
THE PRESIDENT:Suppose you start at the beginning again.
DR. DURCHHOLZ:As the next document in Book III on page 190 I submit Document No. 65 as Exhibit No. 63. This is the affidavit of the Police Inspector, Otto Kay.
On Page 192 I submit Document No. 66 as Exhibit No. 64. This is the affidavit of the Secretary for Criminal Affairs, Richard Ruehe. On Page 194 I submit Document No. 67 as Exhibit No. 65. This is the affidavit of the Superior Secretary for Criminal Affairs, Wilhelm Parchmann. On Page 214 I submit Document No. 74 as Exhibit No. 66. This is the affidavit of the Higher Secretary for Criminal Affairs, Emil Kroeger. On Page 222 I submit Document No. 77 as Exhibit No. 67.
This is the affidavit of the Police Inspector, Fritz Schmidt. On page 225 I submit Document No. 78 as Exhibit No. 68. This is the affidavit of the Senior Secretary, Senior Police Secretary, Willy Aland. On Page 229 as Exhibit No. 69 I submit Document No. 79. This is the affidavit of the Police Inspector Heinrich Herrlein. All these witnesses were formerly subordinates or collaborators of the defendant Schulz in Bremen. All of them confirm, as can be gathered from the documents I submitted earlier, that the defendant Schulz never had any political attitudes but was always impartial in fulfilling his duties as a police official, that as far as questions of protective custody were concerned which he had to deal with, he always conducted himself humanely and that he took special care of people in protective custody and their families, further, that he never was anti-Semitic, rather that he always showed a tolerant attitude.
As the next document in this matter I submit and offer on page 251 the Document No. 86 as Exhibit No. 70. This is the affidavit of the present director of the city food office in Bremen, Heinrich Sebbes. This witness, who had been in protective custody in 1993 because of communist leanings and against whom very serious charges were raised for this same reason, confirmed that he had become acquainted with the defendant Schulz as a decent and just man who respected the limits of humanity. He also confirmed that Schulz in this, his humane attitude, spared many another person a sad fate and had managed to get many people out of concentration camps.
As far as Point III of my index is concerned, namely the activity of the defendant Schulz in Graz in the year 1938, I submit and offer on Page 188 Document 64 as Exhibit No. 71. This is the affidavit of the Police Counsellor Josef Frank from Millstadt on a lake in Austria. On Page 203 Document No. 71 as Exhibit No. 72. This is the affidavit of Dr. Paul Hillinger from St. Martin in Austria. On Page 239, Document No. 82 as Exhibit No. 73. This is the affidavit of Wilhelm Weinzierl from Graz in Austria.