 |
MR. SPRECHER: Mr. President, because it is ultimately the property of
the Control Office and has only remained here pending processing, I am not
certain that I can do that, but I will try to see if I can.
PRESIDING
JUDGE SHAKE: Would you be safe in asking that it be made as an exhibit in lieu
of the copy that is in the record? Then you can file a motion to withdraw it
later and substitute the copy.
MR. SPRECHER: Yes, I think in this case
we could convince the Control Office that that was important.
PRESIDING
JUDGE SHAKE: Very well.
MR. SPRECHER: Let's —
PRESIDING
JUDGE SHAKE: Then the record may show that, subject to being withdrawn later if
the Court deems it proper, the original of the document is now substituted for
the copy in the file of the Secretary General.
DR. SIEMERS : Let me
state —
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE: Now do you wish, Dr. Siemers, to
pass up the original document to the defendant before you question him about
it?
DR. SIEMERS: The photostatic copy is in agreement with that
original, but certainly I can give Dr. ter Meer the original and we will arrive
at the same result.
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE: I think you had better do
that because after all it is now the exhibit. It is the better evidence anyway.
DR. SIEMERS: Let me just state, Your Honors, that my objection this
morning was directed against the probative value of that document, and I still
stand by my objection. This so-called original, too, has the strange note at
the end, “Signed” or “Signature” — “Sign. v.
Schnitzler” — or, as Mr. Sprecher says, “Signed,
Schnitzler.” In other words, it doesn't help us.
PRESIDING JUDGE
SHAKE: Well, that is a debatable question. So go ahead and ask your question
now.
DR. SIEMERS: Dr. ter Meer, would you be good enough to tell me
whether the question which was put to you by Dr. Berndt as to how this letter
was drawn up — are you now able to answer that question in greater detail
having read the original of the letter?
A. Yes. From the excerpts which
I had read previously, I could only more or less guess what its contents were.
I gathered that a certain friction existed between Wiesbaden and the German
administrative offices in Paris. If, however, one reads the third and fourth
paragraphs, one finds that this actually means that the author of the letter
informs Minister Hemmen how it came about that certain conferences were
conducted in Paris which Hemmen would have preferred to conduct in Wiesbaden.
This explanation in the third and fourth paragraphs assumes the form of almost
an apology. This supports my view even more that these remarks concerning
“sincere |
253 |
. 
