1946-12-18, #5: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the Defense Counsel ready to proceed with the cross examination?

DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, the defense counsel for Sievers and Brandt do not intend to cross examine the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross examination of the witness to be made by any other defense counsel?

DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the defendant Dr. Rose): Mr. President, I should like to put four questions to the witness, which have nothing to do with the type of questions which we are dealing with now, but which may be important for the defendant Dr. Rose.

THE PRESIDENT: The counsel will state the questions so that the Tribunal may rule on their probative value and whether they should be admitted at this time.

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I like to point out that I want to put a question to the witness because the witness happens to be here at the moment.

THE PRESIDENT: The counsel will state what the questions are.

DR. FRITZ: The first question is whether the witness can testify whether the Hygienic Institute at Strassbourg was damaged during an air raid, during which a number of members of this institute lost their lives.

THE PRESIDENT: The counsel will state the other questions, which he desires to ask.

DR. FRITZ: In the event that the witness cannot recall the date of the air raid, I should have pointed out to him that we are concerned with the same air-raid during which the wife and the son of Professor Hirt were killed in their Strassbourg flat.

A further question would be whether the witness knows that after this attack if work could be continued in the Hygienic Institute and whether the work actually was continued.

My next question would be to ask the witness whether he knows that after this air attack the valuable times were removed from this Institute, because of air raid precautionary reasons.

Mr. President, The Anatomical and Hygienic Institutes are very close to one another in Strassbourg and it is quite possible that the witness will be able to answer these questions.

THE PRESIDENT: It appears to the Tribunal that these questions might be pertinent if propounded by counsel for Defendants Sievers and Brandt, but the pertinency regarding Defendant Rose is not apparent.

Did counsel for the appellant understand the statement by the tribunal?

DR. FRITZ: No. Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: I will restate it. It occurs to the Tribunal that these questions might well be pertinent if propounded for Defendants Sievers and Brandt, but the Tribunal does not understand the pertinency of these questions on behalf of the Defendant Rose.

MR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I don't think that the defense counsel for Sievers has any interest in these questions. The questions are in connection with the work of Prof. Hagen in Strassbourg. We are concerned with hyperthesis experiments.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal fails to understand the connection and interest of Defendant Rose in those questions.

MR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, we have not yet come to the presentations of the case with which the Defendant Rose is primarily concerned, that deals mostly with the experiments relating to typhus. Certain of those experiments, as charged in the indictment, were carried out by Prof. Hagen who was the consulting physician of the Typhus experiments and as such, so the prosecution says, was a subordinate of the Defendant Rose. Hagen, it is alleged, worked in the Strassbourg University in the Hygienic Institute of the Strassbourg University and carried out his alleged criminal experiments in the Natzweiler concentration camp. We are here concerned with a witness, who was concerned with a part of the experiments with which we are concerned and he was working with both the Anatomical and Hygienic Institute of the Strassbourg University. The questions asked for the Defendant Rose are to bring certain information which might be of interest as to the activities of the Hygienic Institute. The prosecution does not raise any serious objections to the asking of those questions, except to point out that it is beyond the scope of the direct examination and he is thereby making this witness his own witness and he will be so bound be the answers given in response to these questions.

JUSTICE SEBRING: That is certainly true, Mr. McHaney. Will this witness, who is now available on the stand be available at a subsequent date in this Tribunal so that counsel can call him as a witness?

MR. MCHANEY: The witness will not be called by the prosecution again at any time. He was called merely for the purpose of questioning him on the Strassbourg questions. We will send him back to Strassbourg and we will not call him again.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you do not have any objections to the counsel for Dr. Rose questioning him as stated, so it will appear in the transcript of the proceedings that he is being called as a witness for the Defendant Rose. With that understanding, the Counsel for Defendant Rose may call the witness as a witness for the defense. The record will show that the witness is testifying for Defendant Rose.

DR. FRITZ (Counsel for Dr. Rose): Witness, did you understand the questions as I put them before?

THE WITNESS: No.

DR. FRITZ: I shall repeat the questions.

BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: Can you give me the date when the Hygienic Institute of the University in Strassbourg was damaged by an air raid, during which a number of members of this institute lost their lives?

A: Must I answer now in French or in German?

Q: Either.

A: At the Anatomical Institute during the bombardments, there were no victims whatsoever. There were two or three victims at the Pharmacological Institute, which was situated behind the Anatomical Institute. Mr. and Mrs. Hirt were killed as was laboratory assistant, whose name I do not know. Apart from that there was no other case of bombardment of the hospital.

Q: Witness, I was speaking about the Hygienic Institute.

A: In the matter of the Hygienic Institute, I cannot answer because I don't know anything definite. I was working in the Anatomical Institute and we were not allowed to communicate.

I cannot answer that question as I am not properly informed.

Q: Witness you state that Strassbourg was hardly bombed. It is possible that you remember when this air-raid took place and you could remember the date, just when the Hygienic Institute was damaged; what year and what date?

A: I am not a very good head for exact dates. I know that it was bombed, but when it was exactly I cannot say.

Q: In that case, I have, no further questions to ask the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel desire to ask any questions of this witness in the morning? if not, the witness may be excused.

We will recess until 9:30 in the morning.

(ADJOURNMENT.)