DR. SEIDL: When the witness was heard here I had no opportunity to cross-examine him, and for that reason. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you have no opportunity to cross-examine him?
DR. SEIDL: Because I did not know beforehand that he would be called by the Prosecution as a witness and had no opportunity to speak to the Defendant Frank about the questions which might have been put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will consider whether the witness ought to be recalled for cross-examination or whether you will be allowed to call him yourself. The affidavit which you say he has made, has that been submitted to the Prosecution?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I have not seen it, My Lord.
DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, my opinion on this point is the following. . .
THE PRESIDENT: When you saw Von dem Bach-Zelewski did you see him with a representative of the Prosecution?
DR. SEIDL: No, Mr. President, the General Secretary himself granted me permission to speak to the witness, and that was after the Court had already approved the use of an interrogatory.
THE PRESIDENT: But when the witness was called by the Prosecution and you had the opportunity of cross-examination, if you were not ready to cross-examine, you ought to have asked to cross-examine him at a later date. I mean if you were not able to cross-examine at that time, because you had not had any communication with the Defendant Frank on the subject, you ought to have asked to cross-examine at a later date.
DR. SEIDL: I could have made this application to the Court if I had thought that there was any reason for questioning the witness. I did not find out until later that the witness possessed any vital information relevant to Frank’s case.