1947-01-06, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

DR. FRITZ (Counsel for the defendant Rose): Mr. President, my client drew my attention to the following: This morning the witness Grandjean was examined. He was continually asked by the Prosecution about typhus, or Fleckfieber which is translated to typhus in English. The interpreter always translated that word to the witness as typhoid fever which is a completely different disease. During the entire examination of this witness, both witness and Prosecution were speaking about two entirely different matters. I myself am not sufficiently educated in medicine and my client has asked me to ask the High Tribunal so that he may be able to explain the difference. This, however, would necessitate another examination of the witness in order to clarify this difference, and I should like to ask you the following: The witness towards the end testified that we were surprised that the people--in English could get typhoid fever, meaning in German Typhus--although all of us were inoculated against. Fleckfieber which in English is typhus, however, could not be inoculated against since there weren't enough typhus vaccines available.

THE PRESIDENT: I would ask the Prosecution if the witness is still available?

MR. McHANEY: I think it may be possible to recall the witness, Your Honor. He is trying to get away to Paris, I think, on the train this afternoon. I am not sure he is still in the courthouse.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you ascertain if the procurement of the witness is possible?

MR. McHANEY: Yes, indeed. I think it will take five or ten minutes for us to make a search of the courthouse to see if he is still here. In the meantime, I suggest that I continue with the presentation.

THE PRESIDENT: If the witness is not in the courthouse, will you take immediate steps to find where he is and procure his attendance here as soon as possible?

MR. HcHANEY: Yes, indeed, Your Honor, we certainly shall.

THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed meanwhile.

MR. McHANEY: Before the recess, I was reading document NO-571 which is Prosecution Exhibit 285. I had finished reading the first part of the exhibit which dealt with the department for spotted fever and virus research, the so-called clinical section. The second part of this work report is entitled the "Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research, production of Vaccines." And on 10 August, we find the following entry: "Termination of the exterior alteration works on the prisoners' barrack 50 in Buchenwald Concentration Camp."

16 August. Opening of the 'Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research.' Transfer of the Head of the Department, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding to Buchenwald. Beginning of the preliminary work for production.

20 September. First infection of 3 guinea pigs with spotted fever infected blood, strain Bu I. Up to the end of the year 8 successful infections from this strain and positive adaptation of the strain to mice (with only two infections due to lack of these experimental animals), as well as to the lungs of rabbits through mice with the brains of guinea pigs as starting material.

24 September. Isolation of the strain Bu II on 3 guinea pigs with spotted fever infected blood. After successful adaptation at the end of the year 8th inflection. Performance of 4 infections of mice. Great quantities of standard type rickettsia. Furthermore successful adaptation of the strain Bu II to the lungs of rabbits through mice.

9 October. Due to lack of mice experiment to adapt the mixed strains Bu I and Bu II directly from infected brains of guinea pigs to the lungs of rabbits. At the end of the year this strain is contained fully virulent in the 6th infection of rabbits. Since the 5th infection particularly great quantities of rickettsia on the lungs of rabbits. The results of the direct adaptation experiments are being checked by pathogenic and skin virulence tests.

12 October. Reported to the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS that the experiments for the breeding of rickettsia strains on the lungs of rabbits were successful and production was only handicapped by the lack of the refrigerator and of the Calabeius meat-triturator model.

22 October. Isolation and transfer to guinea pigs of the strain Bu IV of subjects infected with spotted fever after strain Bu III had died during the first infection. In this case the lack of mice was once more especially noticeable.

First Half of November. Outbreak of an epidemic among 375 recently supplied mice to which 289 animals succumbed within a few days. As the remaining mice were not healthy either, they were killed.

11 November. Vaccination of rabbits with infected lungs of mice. Later on performance of two more infections of rabbits. Experiments are a complete success, large quantities of rickettsia with well-developed bacillishaped elements on the lungs of the rabbits.

30 November. Successful direct adaptation of the strain Bu IV from the brains of infected guinea pigs to the lungs of rabbits. After performance of another infection of rabbits, mixing of the strain with the strains Bu I and Bu II. All infections continue to be successfully carried out.

4 December. Experiment, by making use of the night frosts and by using the handshake technique without refrigerator and without Calabeius, to produce the first sample of vaccine. For this purpose lungs of rabbits of the 5th or 6th infection series of the mixed strain Bu I and Bu II, which are rich in rickettsia, were used.

14 December. Centrifugation of the suspension produced on 4 December.

15 December. Starting of the refrigerator which had arrived in the meantime. Result of the examination of the sediment of the vaccine produced on 4 December: after 2 hours of centrifugation great quantities of rickettsia (vacilli-shaped, point-shaped, dumb-bell shaped). The sterility control proved the suspension free from bacteria.

17 December Four guinea pigs were given intraperitoneal injections of 1 cubic cm. of vaccine each in order to check whether the vaccines produced on 4 December agreed with them. The guinea pigs did not show any alterations of veracity nor of temperature and were still alive at the end of the year.

24 December Vaccination of a series of ten guinea pigs with each our own vaccine and Giroud vaccine in order to infect them later on with spotted fever-infected blood.

29 December The reactions for skin virulence according to Giroud show a virulence of the suspension at a dilution of 1.2:000 to 1:4.000.

For the performance of the breeding experiments fifty-six mice, one hundred thirty four guinea pigs and one hundred twelve rabbits were used up to the present date.

In the serological department 1226 proteus OX 19 agglutinations, 3 Greber-Widal tests and 4 Takata-Ara-reactions were performed for the SS Infirmary and Buchenwald Concentration Camp and its branch camps.

For our own requirements up to this date about 1500 cubic cm. of typhusparatyphus B deposits have been produced in order to reduce the power of resistance of the experimental animals.

The witness, Henri Jean Grandjean, is now waiting outside. I think it might add to the continuity if I completed this document, and we will then call him to the stand.

The part which I have just read from Prosecution Exhibit 285, of course deals with the production of typhus vaccines which was carried on in stations known as Block 50 of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, and I might say that the guinea pigs which they make reference to here are, in fact, real guinea pigs because these animals, rabbits and guinea pigs, and so forth, are necessary in the production of typhus vaccines.

The important part of the document for our own purpose is that dealing with the so-called clinical section where the infection experiments were carried out. That which was noted as the "Clinical" was, in fact, Block 46 of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

We come now to Part III of this document which is entitled "Inspections of the Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research", and I think that this part of the document is particularly important because it shows who was coming to the Typhus and Virus Research Institute, Buchenwald, and who was interested in it, and the first entry on 8 February 1943 shows the inspection of the Clinical Section by Oberstabsarzt Dr. Eyer of the Institute for Spotted Fever and Virus Research of the OKH Krakow and by Oberstabsarzt Dr. Schmitt of the Medical Inspectorate of the Army. I ask the Tribunal to note that they were not visiting the so-called Production Section where they were manufacturing the vaccines in Block 50. They visited the Clinical Section where they were carrying on the murderous infection experiments with typhus; and who made these visits? Dr. Eyer: the Tribunal will recall that in the chart of the organization of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht drawn by the Defendant Handloser, he showed very prominently that this Institute for Spotted Fever and Virus Research of the OKH at Krakow was under his control, that is to say, it fell within the jurisdiction of his office. The Institute, as he also showed on his chart, was directly controlled by this same Dr. Eyer who was paying a visit to Dr. Ding (Schuler) to observe the infection experiments at Buchenwald.

And who always came there? Dr. Schmitt of the Medical Inspectorate of the Army. And who was the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Army on 8 February 1943? He sits in the Defendants' dock and his name is Handloser. He also observed the operations of the typhus infection experiments in Block 46 at Buchenwald.

On the 24th of August, 1943, we find:

Inspection of the department by the Director of the Central Building Section of the Waffen-SS and Police, SS-Obersturmfuehrer Huehnefeld, and discussion of necessary improvements.

On the 26th of August:

Inspection by the higher SS and Police leader in Kassel. SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen-SS the Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont, and by the Commandant of Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

3 September: Inspection by the head of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS, SS-Standartenfuehrer lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky.

Of course, it is not strange to find Mrugowsky there since his Institute which was being run directly by Ding was under his control by virtue of the fact that he was Chief of the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS of which the Typhus and Virus Research Institute was a part.

29 September Inspection by the Chief of Office D III in the SS Economic and Administrative Main Office (WVHA), SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Lolling and Professor Dr. Schenk.

Part IV of the Exhibit is entitled: "Official Trips by the Head of the Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research."

28 February to 6 March SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to Paris for the purchase of laboratory equipment for the Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research, Weimar-Buchenwald, and for the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS.

27 April to Once more on detached service to Paris for the same 1 May purpose.

25 June to 15 August Ordered sick leave at Sellin on Ruegen.

27 August Conference with the Zeiss Film at Jena, with the Landesgewerbearzt and in the University library.

4 September Inspection in the village of "X" with the Head of the Hygiene Institute SS-Standartenfuehrer lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky, with the Standertarzt of the Waffen-SS WeimarBuchenwald and with the adjutant of the commandant of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

8 September Another inspection in the village of "X".

16 September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Jena, conference with the Zeiss firm concerning the alteration of two microscopes.

23 September Purchase of laboratory requisites at Erfurt.

29 September to Conference in Berlin with the Head of the Hygiene Institute 4 October of the Waffen-SS, SS-Standartenfuehrer lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky.

13 October Inspection at "Dora" and "Laura" with the commandant of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp.

21 October Inspection of the branch commands Leipzig. Wernigorode, Schoenebeck and "Dora" with the camp commandant.

25 October to On detached service with the German Hygiene Institute for 15 November the Eastern Territories in Riga and subsequently conference with the Madaus firm in Dresden at the instance of SSObergruppenfuehrer and General of the Waffen-SS von Weyrsch, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer.

And this document is obviously prepared for the signature of Ding.

One little point to note finally is that on these official trips of Ding when he was away from the Typhus and Virus Research Institute at Buchenwald, it was the Defendant Hoven who was in charge of the Institute in his absence, and thus is the position of the Prosecution that he also bears primary responsibility for the crimes which were there committed.

And I think we may now call the witness, HenriJean Grandjean, to the stand again.

THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Henri-Jean Grandjean.

MR. McHANEY: I take it that his reappearance on the stand is for the sole purpose to clarify the translation question raised by Defense Counsel, and that no further direct or cross examination will be permitted.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness is reminded that he is still under oath.

THE WITNESS: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: She is also reminded that she is still under oath.

THE INTERPRETER: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Does Counsel for the Prosecution desire to ask any questions in the first instance?

MR. McHANEY: No, Your Honor. The Tribunal plans to clarify this point with the witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Defense may examine the witness.

HENRI-JEAN GRANDJEAN, a witness, took the stand and testified further as follows:

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITZ:

Q: Dr. Fritz, Counsel for the defendant Rose: Witness, during your examination this morning the prosecutor asked you continually about Fleckfieber which is translated in the English with "typhus". The interpreter however, did not correctly designate this disease and translated it with "typhoid fever," which in German is called "Abdominal typhus". During your entire examination the Prosecutor was speaking about Fleckfieber --English: "typhus" -- and you, Witness, were always talking about typhoid fever.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I object to the form of the question. The question now before the Tribunal is whether or not the Prosecutor and the witness understood one another in the use of the word, "typhus", and I object to his stating the proposition in such a manner that it appears that I was talking about and thinking of typhus while the witness was talking about and thinking of typhoid. This is the problem which we are now trying to clarify, and I would appreciate it if the Defense Counsel would so state the problem so as to get an answer from this witness.

THE PRESIDENT: It is clear that Counsel for the Defense is endeavoring to clarify the testimony of this witness, but the question in form is rather objectionable. Cannot Counsel reframe that question and ascertain in asking the witness what he intended to testify to, what particular form of fever.

Q: I am now asking you witness, when giving your answer to the question of the Prosecutor, were you speaking about fleckbieber, that is, typhus, or were you speaking about abdominal typhus, which is, in English, typhoid fever?

A: There seems to have been a misunderstanding here between the English and the German expression. However, there was no doubt in my mind. I was going to speak about fleckfieber -- typhus. The question here was not typhoid, and I never thought about typhoid at all.

Q: That is, you always spoke about fleckfieber -- typhus?

A: I should again like to emphasize that I was speaking about typhus exanthimaticus because I was nursing 1200 patients who were infected with this disease, and I am quite convinced it was always a question of typhus and not typhoid.

Q: It seems to me this misunderstanding is cleared up and I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions by any of the Counsel for the defense on this matter?

(Apparently none.)

Does the Prosecution have any further questions?

(Apparently none.)

The witness is excused.

MR. McHANEY: I come now to Document No.582 which is on page 21 of the English Document Book. This will be Prosecution's Exhibit No.286. I am skipping for the moment Document No.859 because, your Honor, the Document Book does not have the translation contained in the book. It is simply a certification which goes on the Document; therefore, I am going to No.582 which will be Prosecution's Exhibit No.286.

This is a letter from the defendant Mrugowsky to Schuler at the Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research at Buchenwald. You see at the top the date, 17 November 1944, and the letterhead of the office in which the defendant Mrugowsky was active at that time, and which was: Reich Physician SS and Police, the Chief Hygienist, who Mrugowsky. The letter reads as follows:

Dear Comrade Schuler:

Enclosed I return your work on acridin with the notes of approval.

The merger of the weeklies makes publication in its present form (11 pages without references and 1 curve) impossible for the "Medical Journal" because the editor accepts only articles of 8 normal type-written pages, e.g. 2 pages in print. There remains the alternative of shortening it or publishing it in another paper, for instance 'Archive for Hygiene' or 'Journal for Immunity Research'. I would deem the first alternative the better one.

Best regards and Heil Hitler! Yours Mrugowsky

And, we come to the attachment to this letter which is part of the same Document, and we see that it is the paper written by the deceased Ding or Schuler, concerning experiments he had made on the treatment of typhus with acridin derivates.

I call the Tribunal's attention to the stamp that is contained on this paper written by Ding. "From the Medical Service Officially. No objections." Meaning, I take it, that there was no objection to the publication of this paper. And the stamp, "The Reich Physician SS and Police, Berlin 29 September 1944, by order of A. Poppendick, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer." So, we see that the defendant Poppendick is offering his approval of the publication of this paper written by Ding. Poppendick, the Tribunal will recall, is head of the personnel staff and with Doctor Grawitz in the Reich Physician SS and Police; and, of course, in the same office with Mrugowsky.

JUDGE SEBRING: Do you maintain that A. Poppendick and H. Poppendick are the one and same person?

MR. McHANEY: Yes, I am certain of that your Honor. I do not know if the translation in both are correct. I think it would be best if I passed the Document up for the Tribunal to inspect. It is not clear looking at it -- this initial before the name Poppendick, it is not clear whether it is an H or an A. I take it, it could be translated either way. I think the explanation is, if the Tribunal pleases, that the initials IA means by order. You are looking at the original, and I think you will find there are the initials IA rather than just A; so, really it means by the order of Poppendick.

I say, before reading portions of this paper written by Ding that it will not be apparent that is, the paper, that criminal experiments were being conduced, but we shall prove very shortly after I finish reading portions of the Document that they were, in fact, criminal experiments which resulted in the death of a number of the experimental persons. Of course, the paper would not include the fact that they had artificially infected the experimental subjects because it was going to be published in a medical journal, but I submit the fact it was submitted to the Office of the Reich Physician SS and Police, and more specifically, to Poppendick to get their approval indicates those gentlemen were in a position to know what actually took place during the course of those experiments. The paper reads in part as follows:

On Treatment of Typhus with Acridin Derivates by Dr. Medicine Erwin Ding, SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Waffen-SS.

Publication of HOLLER's and ZAJITSCHEK's 'A very successful, strictly casual-pathogenetic therapy of Typhus' (1) induces us to make a report about therapeutic experiments which we made with the same drugs Rutenol and Nitroacridin 3582 on 30 persons, as long as half a year before the two authors did.

FUSSGAENGER and WESER (2) had used these two drugs for the treatment of mice, which were infected with murine typhus. 70% of the animals thus treated survived in contrast to an optimum of 6% of the untreated controls. The result of these experiments was so encouraging that we considered ourselves justified in starting clinical tests of the two acridin derivates on human beings afflicted with typhus.

From April to May 1943, 39 persons, whose spotted fever disease had been ascertained serologically and clinically, came to the clinical station attached to the Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research' of the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS for treatment.

With regard to the central nervous system, circulation and exanthema, decidedly grave symptoms of the disease were observed during the course of this epidemic. Accordingly there was also a lethal exitus in over fifty percent of the cases.

Thanks to strictly observed quarantine, the day of infection could be ascertained in a series of cases of the disease. This is particularly important for the determination of the time of incubation as we stressed elsewhere and the start of a specific treatment. In these cases it was possible to administer the drugs at a very early stage, a fact which permitted a more complete judgment.

Of course, Ding is saying here that they were able to experiment on thirty-nine persons who had, so far as appears from this paper, naturally contracted typhus. Note the date, April to May, 1943, because it will be important in a few moments. He says that they were able to determine the date of infection and consequently they could make a good experiment on these people.

The report continues:

At the time in question, 1943, the therapy of our patients covered hydro-therapeutic measures, heart circulation support, as well as soothing of grave deliria. Pyramidon and Methylene Blue didn't prove particularly effective to us.

In the meantime we developed a heart circulation therapy for our patients which we used with good success although lethal cases occurred also occasionally in spite of all medicaments and nursing measures.

Then follows some material about the clinical observations what they did, which I shall omit reading and continue on the middle of Page 24 of the English Document Book.

It is quite clear to us that elsewhere and sometimes other experiences which differ strongly from ours can be made with this therapy. The symptoms of spotted fever are so manifold and dependent upon so many facts that it is unnecessary to add anything to the critical remarks of Mrugowsky, Wohlrab, and Aschenbrenner.

According to the instructions of the firm Bayer at Hoecst, Rutenol was administered in the form of a granulate, of which a heaped teaspoonful roughly corresponds to a single dose of four grams. The treatment included a normal series of six to ten single doses at intervals of six hours. In the case of Nitro Acridin, sugar coated, it was one to two tablets three times a day, possibly from the start of the disease. Patients whose infection could be regarded as rather certain were given Rutenol, respectively Acridin already during the incubation time. If the patient could take it even only to some degree, we continued the treatment beyond ten doses.

Modalities and results of the therapy can be seen from the following charts.

Now, there is a certificate of translation at the bottom of that page which does not belong there. That is not the end of the document. The same certificate appears later on at the end of the document. I will ask the Tribunal just to disregard this. The chart on Page 25 gives a chart where they administered the drug Rutenol by the mouth and gives this table showing the age of the experimental subject, the incubation period, the fever days, the course of the disease, the result of it--that is to say, whether he recovered or whether he dies--the complications, time of treatment, the daily quantity of medicaments in grams, and the tolerableness of the subject to the drug--that is to say, whether he vomited or otherwise suffered ill effects from the drug.

The next page, 26, gives a chart summary of the results of treating the typhus patients by Rutenol. You will note that they treated fifteen of the thirty-nine with Rutenol through the mouth; and the reports says:

complications were bronchial pneumonia, nephritis, intestinal bleeding, and subcutaneous phlegmons below the larynx.

Eight of the fifteen patients vomited after Rutenol up to seven times a day.

Mortality was extraordinarily high, with 53.3 per cent. No connection showed between tolerableness and death rate.

Four patients responded well to Rutenol and regained their health; three responded and died. No complications appeared in any of these cases. Eight patients vomited after Rutenol; three of them regained their health; the five others died.

The absolute quantity of the prescriptions administered varied between four and twenty-four grams; hence the prescribed minimum quantity of six single doses of four grams each was in no case undercut. In most cases total dosing was considerably higher. The maximum was reached with 24,14, 4,24,14,8 and 17, 6 grams in the cases 1,2,3,4, and 7, where Rutenol was already used as a prophylactic during the incubation time (two of these patients regained their health; two died), as well as in Case Number 10, who stood the drug, after it was reduced to one to two grams a day in spite of vomiting and nausea, and recovered from his spotted fever of medium severity.

I read this to show the extent to which these patients suffered, not only from the disease itself but from the drugs which they were administering to them. We can see from this the complications of Bronchial pneumonia, nephritis, intestinal bleeding, and subcutaneous phlegmons below the larynx.

On the next page, that is, Page 27, you see the fifteen so-called typhus patients who were given the drug Acridin, 3582, by mouth; and on Page 28 we have a short account of their complications.

The complications were parotitis, nephritis, in one case gangrene of the shank, furunculosis, bronchitis, and decubital sores.

The tolerance was by far less favorable than with Rutenol. Thirteen patients vomited after taking it (up to seven times a day).

Again mortality was very high with 53.3 per cent. Among the dead were also the only two patients who stood the prescription well. Of those who vomited after its administration, seven recovered their health while six died. Also in this respect no elucidating conclusions whatever may be drawn.

The prescribed absolute quantities of the drug amounted to between 2.5 grams and 17.25 grams. In five cases it was already administered as a prophylactic during the incubation time.

At the bottom of the page we find that they had nine so-called typhus patients who were not administered either of these drugs. They were the socalled control group. They were the poor unfortunates who were given Typhus and nothing to help them combat the disease. So we find that fifteen were given the drug Rutenol; fifteen, Acridin; and nine were given nothing whatsoever.

On the next page, 29, we see the reaction which they observed on the control group:

With the persons not treated 'specifically with Acridin derivates,' vomiting over three days occurred in one case. This is proof also for this epidemic that there are cases of cerebral vomiting which are not to be traced back to treatment with drugs. Still, the extraordinary frequency of vomiting of persons treated with Acridin and Rutenol seems to us not to be cerebrally guided but stomachally.

Mortality among the third group of spotted fever patients, who, during the same epidemic, remained without Rutenol or Nitro-acridin treatment, was, as can be seem from the table, only two per cent higher; that is to say, fiftysix per cent. Considering the small number of persons under observation, reference in percentage was only used on account of the better possibility of comparison--we are well aware of the medium error. The complications--bronchitis and decubital sores--must not be hold responsible for the lethal exitus of the cases. Death occurred either due to acute weakness of the heart or as a result of gradual failure of the circulation.

To obtain a comparison between the effects of the two drugs and the course of the non-treated cases as regards temperature and pulse, we drew up an average fever and pulse curve for each group on top of one another. Application of the photographic shadow method to obtain an average curve was not possible.

I omit reading the rest of the document. I don't think it would be useful. We note that this report was concluded on 20 August 1944. There are a number of charts attached to the document and it is completed by Page 37 of the English Document Book.

Now, the only question which we have with respect to this exhibit is whether or not this disease, typhus, was naturally or artificially contracted by the thirty-nine experimental subjects. I take it no crime was committed if in fact these thirty-nine unfortunate people just contracted the disease in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp and then were used as experimental subjects to test the reactions of these two drugs, Rutenol and Acridin. I say the prosecution will so assume. But that was not the case. These men were artificially infected and in fact murdered; and to prove that I would like at this time to introduce Document NO-265, Prosecution Exhibit 287.

DR. FRITZ FLEMMING: Dr. Flemming, counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky. I object to the submission of the Document265 since it is a fraud. I should like the Tribunal to note the entry of the 29th of December, 1941. In this entry, the defendant Mrugowsky is called an SS-Standartenfuehrer. In Exhibit Number 29 of the prosecution, which was presented by the Prosecution, it was established that Mrugowsky was only on the 1st of June 1942 appointed a Standartenfuehrer. Mrugowsky was the direct superior of Ding from whom this document allegedly originates. Ding certainly knew the rank of his immediate superior and knew it exactly. It is therefore out of the question that he would call Mrugowsky on the 29th of December, 1941, a Standartenfuehrer and would call him so in an entry in his diary.

If in fact Mrugowsky was only promoted to a Standartenfuehrer months later, in the same entry of the 29th of December, 1941, the president professor Gildemeister is mentioned, and he is mentioned as the president of the Robert Koch Institute (Reichs Institution To Combat Contagious Diseases). Prof. Gildemeister on the 29th of December, 1941, was not yet the president but mereley the vice-president; and the Robert Koch Institute at that time was yet a Reichs institution, but it was merely a Prussian institute which had the other name of Prussian Institute To Combat Contagious Disease and then as "Robert Koch" only on the 1st of April, 1942; that is, three months later the Robert Koch Institute was promoted as a Reich institution, and Reich Prof. Gildemeister was nominated president.

I should further like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the entry of the 9th of January, 1943; and I quote: "By order of the Surgeon General of the Waffen SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS Dr. Genzken, the hitherto existing Spotted Fever Research Station at the concentration camp Buchenwald becomes the "Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research." It can be seen from that until the 9th of January, 1943, the department headed by Ding in Buchenwald had the name of Spotted Fever Experimental Station in the concentration camp of Buchenwald.

I ask the High Tribunal now to look at the heading of the diary. It says, "Diary of the division for research of spotted fever and virus at the Institute of Hygiene of the Waffen SS." This title must have been written before the date of the 29th of December, 1941, more than one year before the division actually received the name of Division for Research of Spotted Fever0 and Virus; and at that time already this name is used in the heading. Since Ding must have known the name of the department of which he was the head, it is quite out of the question that this diary can have originated from him; and it is impossible that it was written on those days as are designated in the diary.

I then ask the High Tribunal to look once more at the entry of the 9th of January, 1943. Dr. Genzken is called SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS. However, looking at the exhibit of the prosecution, Number 24, which has been submitted to the Tribunal, it can be seen that Dr. Genzken was only on the 30th of January, 1943, promoted to SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS. Genzken was the disciplinary superior of Ding. Ding must have known his rank exactly for that reason. For that reason, too, it is out of the question that this diary can have originated from Ding and that it was actually used as a diary.

The particular point of a diary is that entries are being made correctly and that the entries are made at the time when the man who does make the entries has them completely in his memory and in addition the man who is making the entries, when writing down the individual facts, does not know what effect these facts will have at a later date.

So that a diary always represents an assumption of an objective report.

If someone more than one year later, as has been done in the case which is before us, makes an entry, and if this entry then gives the artificial appearance of a diary, and if he then in addition adds the title of "Diary," then the reason can only be an intention of deceit; and if such a deceit was intended and for this purpose, a mock diary was created, then the individual entries in this diary are made in such a manner as serve the purposes of the man who wants to commit a deceit. According to my opinion, such a fraud cannot be admitted into evidence.

In order to complete my statement, I may mention that further improbabilities are contained in this diary which, however, are not of such illustrative nature as the ones which I have just mentioned; and I therefore will not mention the others at the moment.

I should again like to point out that the diary was written with a typewriter, so we are not concerned with a diary in a book form but we are concerned with flyleaves, loose flyleaves; and the possibility has always existed that they were changed over. For that reason, I ask the High Tribunal before deciding the admissibility of this document to order the prosecution that they submit the original of that so called diary and in addition that they state in what manner this diary reached their hands. If they received it from a third party, then there is a possibility and danger that leaves were exchanged.

MR. McHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I might remark that the prosecution somewhat resents the light use of the word "fraud" without some further explanation of what the defense attorney has in mind. I do not know precisely where this document was obtained. It purports to be an original. I shall ascertain in the interim between the recess now and 1:30 precisely where it came from and the facts surrounding it.

JUDGE SEBRING: Do you have in your hands the original?

MR. McHANEY: I have it in my hand, yes; and on each page or substantially each page you will see the name of Dr. Ding or Dr. Schuler, after he changed his name. I would also like to point up the very obvious weakness of the argument made by defense counsel. It is sheer supposition that these entries were made from day to day. As a matter of fact, the diary itself conclusively shows that they were not so made. A great number of these experiments which were carried out show in the entries that they were not made from day to day. For instance, just take as an example Page 49 of your English Document Book. There you see a certain typhus experimental series running from the 8th of March, 1944, to the 18th of March, 1944, the entry appearing under those dates. So quite obviously we just are arguing about something we don't know when we try to conjecture as to when these entries were made.

JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, do you have in evidence or in the possession of the prosecution other documents signed by Dr. Ding in what is admittedly his handwriting so that the Court may have the opportunity to compare the signatures with the signatures appearing in this purported diary?

MR. McHANEY: We do, your Honor. The Prosecution Exhibit 283 is, as you will recall, an affidavit signed by the deceased Dr. Schuler; and it has a very pronounced and distinguishable characteristic. Now, in the diary you will find that the greater part of it is signed by Dr. Ding but the last number of entries, beginning late in 1944, are signed by Dr. Schuler, although they are erroneously translated in the translation before the Tribunal as Dr. Kluber. That is because it is very difficult to read his signature; but it is Dr. Schuler, who is the same as Dr. Ding.

I do not know offhand if we have a sample of the signature of Dr. Ding in evidence. I rather think that we do have one and can possibly put it in evidence. I would also like to point out, though, that this argument about Mrugowsky not being a Standartenfurhrer on such and such a date; that he was an Oberfuehrer or something of that sort, while it may indicate that the entries were not made on that particular day, indicates nothing more and certainly points to no fraud.

I was just about to point to entries made on this report of Ding's which I have already read into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 286, which, as you will recall, dealt with thirty-nine experiments on persons afflicted with typhus with the drugs Acridin and Rutenol from April to May, 1943; and I can point to the very place in that diary which substantiates this report written by Ding, which certainly is not contested by the defense; and the entry in the diary corroborates this, that they did on the date here mentioned experiment on precisely thirty-nine people, fifteen with Acridin, fifteen with Rutenol, just as it is reported in Prosecution Exhibit 286. And so it appears in the diary; and it also appears that all thirty-nine were artificially infected with typhus and that more than half of them were so murdered.

So if we are to engage in arguments about when these entries were made, I submit that is a fairly forceful argument for the authenticity of this document.

DR. FLEMMING: I may point out that as a matter of course it is possible that some of the entries actually are in compliance with the facts; but the fact alone that more than one year has elapsed before the division received their real name and that this wrong name was used in the title, this fact alone shows that it cannot be a diary. It is quite possible and I submit that it is a matter of course that the prosecution has received this diary and it was called a diary when they received it; but I still maintain that the person who produced this diary has falsified it for certain purposes. I think that I have proved that through the inexactitudes which cannot be explained.

THE PRESIDENT: We will now adjourn for the noon recess. In the meantime the prosecution may find some signatures of Dr. Ding which might conveniently be introduced in evidence. The Court will resume and take up its ruling on this matter at 1:30 o'clock. We will now recess until then.

(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)