1947-03-31, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 31 March 1947, 0930, Justice Seals presiding.

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.

Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.

There will be order in the courtroom.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.

THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.

JOACKIM MRUGOWSKY — Resumed

MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, I have several matters to call to the attention of the Tribunal. One is concerning the case of the Defendant Wolfram Sievers. I received notice on Saturday that the Defendant Wolfram Sievers is calling four witnesses, one a Dr. Edmund Mai who will testify as to the defendant's participation in the malaria and sea-water experiments. The prosecution, of course, was no objections to calling of that witness. The second witness is a Dr. Frederic Hilscher who is to testify as to the defendant's activities in the resistance movement. The prosecution has no objection to the calling of that witness. However, defense counsel has expressed the intentions of calling two witnesses named Dr. Franz Borgenau and Dr. Edward Topf. Those two witnesses, your Honor, are to testify, as it states on the notice received by the prosecution, as to the personality and political activity of the witness, Dr. Frederic Hilscher.

Now, I submit that this is a most unusual procedure, that is, calling two witnesses to testify as to the character and activity of another witness. Hilscher is not on trial here, and we would like to object at this time to the calling of the last two witnesses in the case of the Defendant Wolfram Sievers; and my reason for doing it at this time is so they won't be going through the burden of bringing those two witnesses to Nurnberg and not having them testify here.

Therefore, I request a ruling from the Tribunal in connection with those two witnesses.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not yet received the formal application for the calling of these witnesses.

DR. WEISGERBER (Counsel for the Defendant Sievers): Mr. President, in my opening speech I pointed out that an essential argument in the defense of my client is his membership in a resistance movement against the Nazi regime. I realize that this line of defense particularly has to be handled with great conscientiousness, and I also realize that there is not inconsiderable skepticism in this respect. If not before this court, at least in other trials before German courts today, membership in a resistance movement is frequently referred to and for that reason I was of the opinion that this line of defense for my client would have to be given such a firm foundation that the Tribunal would be put in the position to get an objective and clear picture. I have called the witness Dr. Hilscher for the activity of my client in the resistance group which he directed. Now, it is my argument that in respect to this witness particularly, the court should be informed about the extent, the development, the nature, and the significance of his resistance activity in order to be able to judge whether the activity of my client within this resistance group had the significance necessary for judicial judgement and, there, I am of the opinion that to give a firm foundation to the activities of the witness Hilscher these other two witnesses must absolutely appear here before the court. I believe that this is more easily possible since for these two witnesses, Mr. Topf and Borgenau, I will need at the most one morning or one afternoon session, and I consider those two witnesses so important that I ask the court to approve my application.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will rule upon this question at the opening of this afternoon's session.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have another question concerning Dr. Horn, the witness that we discussed on Friday last.

I has been called to ay attention this morning by defense counsel for Koben that he would like to call Dr. Horn to the stand upon completion of the direct examination of the Defendant Mrugowsky. Prosecution has no objection to that procedure either.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness on the stand — Just a moment. To the Secretary-General, I will return those applications for the calling of those witnesses for the Defendant Sievers. If the file can be completed this morning we will rule on it at 1:30 — see if the file cannot be completed this morning.

Counsel may proceed.

DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)

BY DR. FLEMING (Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky):

Q: On Friday, before we adjourned, we were speaking of the discussion at the Military Medical Academy, which Ding mentioned in his affidavit, NO-257, prosecution Exhibit 223 in which occurrence of deaths after the application of gas gangrene serum at the front were discussed. You said that the phenol content of the gas gangrene serum was discussed. The possibility was discussed that the phenol content in the largo doses of gas gangrene serum, which had to be given, approached the limit of compatibility. Did you give Dr. Ding an assignment on the basis of this discussion to test this phenol question?

A: Yes, I told him to study the literature and that he was to make use of the libraries of the pharmacological and legal medicine institutes in Jena. He had contact with those institutes.

Q: Did you give him the assignment to participate in euthanasia with phenol?

A: No. I never heard anything about them, about his having carried out such euthanasia, or of such killings having been carried out.

I could not, therefore, have given him any such order.

Q: You are aware that in an affidavit of your co-defendant Hoven it is stated that Ding himself carried out killings in Buchenwald with phenol. Had you given him an assignment to that effect?

A: No, I did not give him any such assignment, and there was no occasion to do so because death by phenol is well known in literature; simply reading the works on the subject would have sufficed.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I submit the Document Mrugowsky 28. I should like to submit it as Mrugowsky Exhibit Number 46. It is on page 174 of Document Book 1A, Mrugowsky 28, page 174, Exhibit 46. It is an affidavit of Professor Killian, who is a University professor at Halle/Saale. He says:

In 1941-1943 I was consulting surgeon with the 10th Army in the East. We had experienced numerous cases of death and damages to the circulation system due to the effects of gas gangrene serum. In my opinion, these bad effects cannot only be attributed to the inoculation of great quantities of unrelated serums, but also to the addition of one-half percent phenol, as is prescribed by law. Since up to 150 cbm of gas gangrene serum — sometimes even more than that — was injected intravenously in the field, in my opinion the total quantity of phenol added then approached a dangerous state. This became obvious after four of my collaborators had had themselves injected intravenously with phenol kitchen-salt solution of 0.5% density. All of them showed typical signs of phenol poisoning to a different degree. In a letter to the medical inspectorate I called their attention to the disappointing effects of the gas gangrene serum and to the detrimental effect of phenol, and made proposals for a change. Consequently, I was officially ordered to report during my staying Berlin to Oberstarzt Professor Schreiber, who was a specialist on this matter.

Present at this conference were Professor Mrugowsky and a junior physician whose name I no longer remember. I did not know any of the three gentlemen; I saw and spoke to them then for the first time. Apart from a few general questions concerning bacteriology, we discussed mainly the gas gangrene serum problem. I had to give an exact report about what rook place at the front and about the symptoms of poisoning. The discussion then took two directions: First, if it were possible for industry to substitute a harmless disinfectant for the dangerous phenol and which one of the many substances would be suitable for this purpose.

Number two is not important. And I can skip the next paragraph too. I come to the last paragraph:

I well remember the substance of the discussions and declare that no mention was made of any experiments in a concentration camp or of achieving euthanasia by injecting phenol. Such considerations never even came up for discussion, let alone an order in my presence by one of the medical officers. This would certainly have remained in my memory. I may add that a reason for such experiments did not exist since the symptoms of phenol poisonings are well known and may be found in any book on pharmacology. Apart from this, the question had been sufficiently settled by the above-mentioned experiments which the physicians had carried out on themselves. I am convinced that Dr. Ding's statements are not true.

Signed, Professor Killian, and certified.

Q: On the basis of the assignment to inform himself from literature about phenol poisoning — this assignment which you gave to him — what did Ding report? Was the question of gangrene serum and the deaths resulting from it settled?

A: Ding's report was given on this assignment. I waited for his report for some time and when it did not come I myself read up on this question. Then I was no longer interested in his report.

Q: On page 20 of the Ding Diary it says that a special experiment on four persons on behalf of Gruppenfuehrer Nebe was carried out.

What do you know about that?

A: I have already mentioned the case of Hauptscharfuehrer [Chief Sniper] Koehler who was at the hospital at Weimar, who died from poisoning. To his death and autopsy inaccurate statements were given. It was said that they occurred in the concentration camp Buchenwald which is not true. At the discussion of the autopsy findings in the Reich Criminal Police Office the opinion had been expressed that this death might have resulted from pervitin in connection with a sleeping drug. I participated in this discussion.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I have already submitted Document Mrugowsky 29, Exhibit 36, on page 177 of the Document Book 1A; Mrugowsky 29, Exhibit 36, page 177. When I submitted it I read the first one and one-half pages. I should now like to read the following portion on page 178, in the middle.

Professor Dr. Timm

— that is, the forensic medical expert from Vienna who performed the autopsy on Koehler —

came to the opinion that there were two possibilities existing: First, that a South American poison had been used which was totally unknown to us and which dissolves itself completely in the human body; second, that a combination of drugs had been used: one drug had excited the circulation until it brought it to the point of exhaustion, the other drug had acted as an antidote. Professor Dr. Timm spoke of the possibility that pervitin had been used together with a soporific. The idea that a South American poison had been used was rejected from a criminological point of view. From a technical point of view the second possibility would have been quite possible.

I had to report the case to the Reich Main Security Office. Subsequently, a conference took place in the Reich Main Security Office at which quite a number of persons were present. The chief of the Reich Main Security Office, Gruppenfuehrer [Group Leader] Mueller, presided. Gruppenfuehrer Nebe of the Reich Criminal Police Office was also present, as well as Professor Dr. Mrugowsky.

At the conference various persons, among others also Dr. Mrugowsky, pointed out that Pervitin was not a poison, that it could be obtained without a prescription. One of the gentlemen present pointed out that in America experiments were carried on where up to 100 tablets of pervitin were administered and the effects were not fatal. But no one present could answer the question of whether a combination of pervitin and a soporific would be harmless or whether it would lead to an increased reaction in any one direction. The latter appeared improbable to the experts. In order to settle this question Gruppenfuehrer Mueller ordered that an experiment be conducted. He ordered that Dr. Ding, whom he knew, should conduct this experiment in Buchenwald.

It was ruled that in this experiment, which was to settle purely the criminal side of the question, only minute quantities of pervitin and soporific should be used since it would be impossible to give large quantities of pervitin and a soporific unobtrusively to a prospective victim of a crime. Moreover, larger quantities of these drugs would have been found in any case by means of a chemical analysis. The scientific theoretical problem concerning the harmfulness or even deadliness of maximum doses did not interest any one.

I was present at the experiments at Buchenwald.

Five persons were presented to us for testing, because Gruppenfuehrer Mueller lad ordered experiments to be conducted on five persons. I checked the papers of the persons to be experimented on prior to the experiment. They were Russians draftees who had deserted, or workers, who had formed a gang, stolen and plundered, and had even been charged with murder. They all had been sentenced to death before a special court in Pomerania. Gruppenfuehrer Mueller had already previously been given the order for execution.

I had agreed with Dr. Ding that a preliminary experiment should be made on three persons to see the kind of area action this combination bad on the organism. Some of the condemned could speak German. They were told that those experiments wore neither dangerous nor painful, and that by taking part they world at least put off their execution. Thereupon they all volunteered. Dr. Ding chose throe of thorn. They were transferred to Block 46. There they wore given a dose of Pervitin and a subcutaneous injection of a soporific. They they had to go to bed. They fell asleep, Their sleep was very restless. One of them slept for 20 hours. The others awoke a little earlier. Then he says that no need them showed the symptoms which Koehler lad shown, and that the experiment was considered completed.

In the last sentence of the next paragraph he says

Therefore, I told Dr. Ding that he should not make any more experiments, and I reported this to Gruppenfuehrer Mueller.

I shall read the last paragraph in another connection.

According to the affidavit of Dr. Morgen, Dueller ordered Ding to carry out the experiment at Buchenwald.

Did you receive a report on this experiment?

A: No, I did not receive a report on it.

Q: Now could Mueller order the experiment, Ding was not his subordinate?

A: If I was called to a discussion outside of my actual sphere of work I had to inform my chief, Grawitz, of it; and that I did in this case, I told him that I knew all about Pervitin, together with my driver I had frequently taken large doses of it, but I also knew, from literature, that Pervitin was never fatal. On the other hand, this Gruppenfuehrer Mueller was one of the most powerful and, no doubt, one of the most dangerous people in Germany. He was head of the Secret State Police, the Gestapo, and it corresponds to the entire nature and character of Grawitz that he wanted to please this man. Therefore, in my presence, he spoke to Mueller on the telephone, and Mueller explained his point of view once more, and thereupon Grawitz agreed that ing was to fulfill Mueller's request.

Q: How I come to another point. The Prosecution has submitted Document NO-301, Prosecution Exhibit 290,which is rot in any document book. It is a report from you to the Reich Criminal Police Office. It deals with aconitum. I shall have this report handed to you. Do you have it?

A: No.

Q: I shall ask you to comment on it. You remember the report?

A: Yes.

Q: You know that General Taylor, in his opening speech, said that this experiment with aconitum had not been conducted in order to find an antidote against aconitum but in order to ascertain how long it takes to kill a human being in this manner. Please tell the Tribunal whether this concerned an experiment.

A: This was not an experiment in the actual sense of the word.

It was the legal execution of five robbers, and some special facts were to be ascertained during this execution. The details were as follows: One day the chemist of the Reich Criminal Police Office, Dr. Wittman, came, to me. He asked me to attend an execution as the official doctor, As the reason for this request he added that in the Government General in Poland a high official had been injured when he was attacked with a revolver; that the bullet had inflicted only a harmless flesh wound, but never-the-less the person had died after a few hours, with symptoms of poisoning. The person who had attacked him had been arrested, and the rest of the ammunition was a hollow ball which contained a crystallized poison. The Chemical Institute of the Reich Criminal Police Office tested this and found that it was aconitum the ammunition was of Russian origin. There is no aconitum in German, it is imported. The question was whether this was the first case of the beginning of a poison warfare against Germany, We had been expecting such a method of warfare for some time. For that reason there was not only criminal interest in clearing up this case but a general interest of the greatest importance. This ammunition was to be tested on 5 robbers who were to be executed anyhow, and it was to be seen whether this crystallized poison contained another poison which had not been found in the chemical tests. The rest of the original Russian ammunition was to be used, and also German ammunition which had been made in imitation of the Russian. At the same time — and this was the main purpose of the experiment — it was to be discovered how much time would be available between the injury and the appearance of the symptoms of poisoning, in order, if necessary, to be able to use an antidote. This question was of such great importance because an antidote against aconitum is hardly known, and if this had actually been the beginning of the poison warfare, then efforts would have to be made immediately to find an antidote.

Therefore, the head of the Reich Criminal police Office asked me, and the Chief of the Criminal Technical Office also asked me to participate in the execution myself, although that was not actually my work but Dr. Wittmann said he did not know of any toxicologist except one in Berlin who had all been drafted, and as a bacteriologist I had a certain amount of experience in symptoms of poisoning connected with bacteria and therefore he asked, me to take over this job. I was rather unwilling to do so, I pointed out to Dr. Wittmann that the Order Police, the regular police in Vienna, had a pharmacologist who was very experienced and I suggested that he should be called upon; but this was not done because of the poor connections resulting from the air warfare. Since, on the ether hand, this question was doubtless of great significance and should not be postponed, I finally declared myself willing to fulfill this request. In accordance with the purpose of this job I made rot only the usual report, but a rather more detailed report on the symptoms of poisoning. This is the report which we have here in this Prosecution document.

Q: You have said that this ammunition which was captured was of Russian production How can that be proved?

A: The Prosecution itself proved that. This document NO-290 is followed by a part of the files which were not included in my report. There are 3 drawings of cross-sections of those bullets which wore made and handed in to the Institute. The heading is:

Poison bullet from a Russian pistol, calibre 7.65

— and details about the construction of this bullet.

Q: You say that this photostatic copy of the bullet was not part of your report.

Now is that shown? Will you compare the stamps in the diary?

A: The report which I handed in is dated 12 September 1914, and then the next day it was received by the Criminal Technical Office, and the receipt stamp carried the number "Secret 53." The drawings, however, have a different secret journal number, that is, 15/1944. If the number G-53 was in September, then, if the distribution of letters received is assumed to be even, throughout the year, I should assume that the belch Criminal Police Office received those drawings in March of the same year. At that time I did not know anything about this attack, and the experiment had not been started yet, Nor did I know any details about the possibility of such a poison warfare.

Q: Who was present at the execution?

A: Dr. Ding, who happened to be in Berlin and who I took with me in order to support my observations; it was he who conducted the actual medical examination. I myself merely ascertained the occurrence of death. Also Dr, Wittman, representing the Criminal Technical Institute, also a representative of the camp commandant, I believe the adjutant, and an Untersturmfuehrer [Lieutenant] who performed the execution, that is, actually shot the people. It is possible that there were others whom I do not remember and whose names I do not know.

Q: Did you investigate in any way who these people were who were executed, and by what court they had been condemned to death?

A: I talked with the people, they understood German, t they were apparently Germans. I considered them racial Germans (Volksdeutsche) of whom we had large numbers in Germany at that time. On the other hand, I knew that in concentration camps executions were carried out, and I had been told that this was an official matter of course and that there had to be an official representative of the camp commandant present. The fact that such a representative was present at this execution was sufficient for me to assume that the matter actually was official, and on the other hand, I had no opportunity to be informed of the sentence or anything like that.

Q: Then you did not see the death sentence order before it was carried out?

A: No, I did not have the opportunity because the doctor is merely called into an execution to ascertain when death occurs, but I am convinced that it was not my duty to examine the sentence order, for I had nothing to do with the actual execution. The order was given by the representative of the camp commandant; someone who was attached to the commandant's office actually shot the people, and I was merely there to ascertain when death occurred and to note the symptoms of poisoning, but Dr. Ding did the latter for me. The official information from a high authority was sufficient proof to me for the legality of the execution.

Q: In the case of two of the five robbers, the poison had no effect. You saw the suffering of the other three from the poison; why did you not shorten this suffering?

A: The sight of this execution was one of the most horrible experiences of my life. On the other hand, I could not shorten the symptoms for in the first place there was no antidote against aconitum available.

If it is in the circulation then there is no possibility of removing it. In the second place, it was the express purpose to find out how long the symptoms of poisoning last in order in later cases to be able to use an antidote, which it was hoped would soon be discovered.

Q: Did you know that executions in Germany can only be carried out by shooting, by hanging, or by beheading, and did you not have any misgivings when this execution was carried out in a different way?

A: I am not a jurist, I do not know the methods of execution. On the other hand, I have already said that, in my opinion, the state itself has the right to determine the method of death for its citizens in war time and doubtless has the right to determine the method of an execution. Here the suspicion had arisen that a poison war was beginning against Germany. This seemed to be supported by the finding of poison Russian ammunition. Since the investigations were carried out by the highest authorities in the Reich, I had no doubt about the juridical admissibility upon which I, as a doctor, had no influence.

THE PRESIDENT: Witness, were each of these men struck by more than one bullet, or only by one bullet each?

THE WITNESS: Each one was shot only once in the thigh; two of these five persons were immediately killed by another shot, because the first shot of the poison ammunition had hit the artery in the thigh and their suffering was immediately stopped; but the others had only flesh wounds and after a certain period of time symptoms of poisoning appeared; that was three people.

DR. FLEMMING: Did you have anything else to do with the previous history of this execution?

THE WITNESS: No.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I should like to reserve the right to further clarify this case I submit the files of the Reich Criminal Police office when I receive them.

On the 17th of December 1946 I applied for the submission of these files. On 23 January 1947, I reminded the Secretary General of this in a letter; on the 7th of February 1947 a letter from Mr. Reiser to the Secretary General recalled the matter once more, and on 8 March 1947 1 talked to Captain Rice of the Secretary General's office. The Secretary General has not yet succeeded in giving me the files, therefore, I ask to reserve the right to submit them later. I am convinced that the state of affairs can be proven clearly from these files. I am also convinced that the files must be available because, as the defendant Mrugowsky has already stated, the Prosecution has submitted two separate pieces from these files which have no connection with each other. For this reason, I ask to reserve the right to submit this document later.

THE PRESIDENT: Will the representative of the Secretary General's office make some investigation and find out where that application by counsel for the introduction of these files now is and endeavor to expedite it to the Tribunal?

BY DR. NELTE:

Q: Do you know any other indication of the danger of a poison warfare, which might justify the measures, which were taken on the basis of the discovery of Russian poison ammunition?

A: During war the use of poison is frequently mentioned and it cannot bo proven, but on the other hand there is an old proverb, "That every new war begins where the old war stopped." In 1941 I knew that the famous American physiologist Henderson during the first World war had received an assignment from the American War Department to produce poison ammunition for use at the front.

Fortunately, it was not used but since America was at war with us, it was a possibility that such use of poison ammunition could be feared in this war. Moreover, I knew of the use of poison in case of sabotage on several occasions. For that reason, I thought that if such an example secured as this case, there was a reason for the assumption that poison warfare was actually being opened against Germany.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I should like to submit an excerpt from the book "Adventures in Respiration," the authorized translation from the English. This is Document Mrugowsky 31. The book itself I shall submit to the prosecution as soon as I have it from the library. I ask that the document be admitted as Mrugowsky Exhibit 47. It is on Page 182 of the Ger man and English document book. Mrugowsky 31, Exhibit 47, page 182.

MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor, we have here merely a copy of an extract from this book. It states:

Excerpts from the authorized German translation of the book 'Adventures in Respiration.'

I have read this over and I cannot see the materiality of this document in this case. Furthermore I do not think it is properly authenticated to be introduced in this form. Be that as it may, I shall formally object to the admission of this document into evidence.

DR. FLEMMING: I merely want to draw this document to the attention of the Tribunal; and I ask permission, as was given in other cases, to give the book itself to the prosecution, since it is a library book which I cannot hand in personally. I think that this excerpt is important for the defense because it says that even in the previous war the development of poisoned ammunition was worked on, so that one had to assume the danger of such ammunition being used at the front, especially if Russian ammunition was actually found to contain such a severe poison as aconitum, not only one case but at least a whole clip of a pistol.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I submit again that this document here concerns a war between the North and the South and assignments by the United States War Department. I don't see what the materiality is. It is not material at all to this issue; whether they first poisoned bullets in the Civil War in America doesn't have any bearing on it.

EXAMINATION

BY THE TRIBUNAL (JUDGE SEBRING):

Q: Witness, are you familiar with this excerpt from the German translation of the book "Adventures in Respiration" by Yandell Henderson?

A: Yes, I know the book.

Q: Can you say for the benefit of the Tribunal when you first read this book or became familiar with its contents?

A: The book was published in 1941 in the German translation if I remember correctly. That is at the beginning of the campaign in Russia, approximately. I learned to know parts of it at that time. Now, here I was reminded of this excerpt when working on the trial; and I have read this passage which I had read previously.

Q: But prior to your preparation for this trial, which I assume began in the year 1946, had you over read this particular excerpt which is now being offered by your counsel in evidence?

A: Yes, I had read that previously. I merely reread it again —

Q: Can you state the approximate date upon which you first read this excerpt?

A:That might have been about 1942. It was shortly after the German translation was published, certainly before this attack, this execution.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, may I point out that the prosecutor said that this quotation which I want to submit refers to the American Civil War. That is not correct. It was worked on by Henderson in the First World War, 1914-18. After American had entered the First World War, Henderson did this work. Also, I see that the heading says "Herderson." His name is really "Henderson" with an "n"; and I ask that the document be admitted.

THE PRESIDENT: The counsel for the Prosecution familiar with this book?

MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has never seen the book before, your Honor, and has not seen it yet.

THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the prosecution ever heard of this publication?

MR. HARDY: Not until I saw the extract in the document book, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: When did counsel notice this alleged extract from the book in Mrugowsky's document book?

MR. HARDY: Pardon, your Honor?

THE PRESIDENT: I say, when did counsel first observe this Mrugowsky document Number 31, which is now the subject of this argument?

MR. HARDY: I believe I observed it this morning before I came to court when I was checking over the documents in the book. Another point that I might bring out in connection with this document, your Honor. There is no concern here about medical experimentation on human beings. In this extract it doesn't tell whether or not they proposed experimentation on human beings or on animals or what they intended to do with any results of poisonous work on behalf of the War Department.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, the document does not refer to experiments but its contents helped in making it necessary when Russian ammunition was found to take up the question in case this was one of the reasons for assuming that possibility. What time will be available to try to save the wounded persons by those antidotes? To that extent this document is in direct connection with the experiments conducted on human beings.

THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be overruled and the document will be admitted in evidence. The book should be furnished to counsel for the prosecution so that counsel for the prosecution may examine the book to which counsel has referred from which this is an excerpt.

DR. FLEMMING: Yes, I shall see to that. Mr, President, then I should like to submit document Mrugowsky 32 on Page 184 of the document book; Document 32, Page 18 4, which I offer as Exhibit Mrugowsky 48. This is an affidavit of Prof. Flury at Wuerzburg, Mrugowsky 32, Page 184, Exhibit 48. I should like to read merely Number 4, one sentence in Number 5, and Number 6.

Prof. Flury says in Number 4:

Aconitum is effective both when administered through the mouth (peroral administration) and when introduced in such a way that it does not pass through the alimentary tract (parenteral administration), for example, injections.

From Number 5 I shall read only the last sentence:

With poisons like aconitum, which, are easily and quickly absorbed, death occurs after parenteral introduction in a shorter time than after peroral introduction.

Number 6:

The following maybe stated with regard to the shortest period within which death may occur. Our experience with regard to human beings is confined almost entirely to poisoning through the stomach. This proves process is slower than injection, regarding Mich only limited and uncertain information is available regarding human beings. Death may occur some minutes after aconitum has been administered, especially if this is done perenterally, in which, case the poison enters the blood vessels. Individuals are said to have died in less than seven minutes.

In experiments with animals, which allow certain conclusions to be drawn with regard to human beings, even shorter periods have been observed, as in the case of and experiment by Robert, in which a horse died three minutes after three miligrams of aconitum had boon injected under skin (subcutaneous injection).

Q: Did the Reich Criminal Police Office with this aconitum execution and the court, did it consider the question settled?

A: I assume so, yes, because after sending up the report I heard no more about it.

Q: Now I come to the so-called special experiment of Dr. Ding, which he mentioned in his diary on 26 October 1944, which was conducted on six persons. The examination of the witness Kogon revealed that that Dr. Ding tried out a mysterious experiment in Buchenwald on six persons, according to instructions from Dr. Mrugowsky under the Reich Criminal Police Office. What assignment had you given for this special experiment?

A: I don't know of this special experiment. I learned of it only from the diary. I gave no instructions and I don't know that Dr. Ding ever received such instruction from the Reich Criminal Police Office. The incorrectness of this statement is indicated by testimony of Kogon, who said that since 1943 Ding had tried to rely only on written orders, and that he was not satisfied with oral orders, but this experiment took place only a year later. Kogon also said that Ding was rather excited, perhaps, and that the thing was every disagreeable that the matter was very disagreeable to him. He said that Ding told him everything at the time, private matters as well as official ones.

Q: This remark of Kogon is in the English transcript on page 1195, in the German's on page 1216.

A: Therefore, I am convinced that had Ding received a written order from me, he would have, no doubt, had shown it to Kogon, but he did not do so.

Q: And if he had not received a written order from you, what do you think he would have done then?

A: I don't understand the question.

Q: If Ding had not received an written order from you for this experiment, although he had asked for it, what do you think he would have done then?

A: Then he would doubtless have expressed his opinion to Kogon.

Q: Then it is your opinion that the fact he neither showed Kogon a written order, nor expressed his opinion to your refusal to give a written order is proof he had no assignment?

A: Yes, and I did not give him any assignment.

Q: Why in your opinion did he discuss this experiment with Kogon?

A: He knew, of course, that everything that happened in camp became known rather quickly, especially things which happened in the crematorium. Therefore, he had to have some explanation for his intentions. I assume that he used this excuse which is that he gave Kogon, excuses for the killing of people on his own initiative.

Q: Do you know that the witness Kogon testified that Dr. Ding had shown him a formula for a poison, and that he had given it to him to seal, and that after the experiment this sealed formula was burned. Did you ever give Dr. Ding any poison for the formula?

A: No, I never gave Ding any such formula.

Q: Did you ever gave him any poison to test?

A: I myself never worked with poison. I was never particularly interested in poison. This was not my field of work. Consequently I would not give Ding any such assignment, and I did not give him any poison to test.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I should like to submit now the affidavit of the co-defendant Sievers, Document Mrugowsky 33, page 187 of the Document Book, which I offer as Exhibit Mrugowsky 49, Document Mrugowsky 33, page 177, Exhibit 49. Sievers said, after the customary introduction:

After the collapse I was interned in the Military Police prison in Bamberg. There were about 100 inmates PW's and internees — in the building. One day a fellow-prisoner introduced him self to me in the lavatory as Dr. Schuler.

He asked me if I did not know him I answered in the negative and he then asked me if I knew him by the name of Ding. When I answered that question also in the negative, he told me that he was the Dr. Ding who made the typhus experiments in the Buchenwald concentration camp. Ding was very much astonished when I told him that I never heard of anything like that before. He added that after his capture he was interrogated several times about these typhus experiments, and that he wished he had his prussic acid capsules from Buchenwald with him now. When I asked what he meant by that, he said that he had prepared about 80 capsules of prussic acid in Buchenwald at the end of 1933, but had unfortunately not kept one for himself so as to be able to commit suicide.

Because I did not know Dr. Ding, and did not care very much for the conversations, I broke off the conversation. The accidental meeting could only have lasted for a short time, because the stay in the lavatory was limited to a few minutes only. I was not told the purpose for which Dr. Ding prepared the prussic acid capsules, or what happened to the 80 capsules I did not speak to Dr. Ding again.

BY DR. FLEMMlNG:

Q: If Dr. Ding had had prussic acid in this special experiment, would he have explained the effect which Dr. Schiedlowsky described in his affidavit, which has been submitted by the Prosecution?

A: Of course I don't know what prussic acid Dr. Ding used. The customary prussic acid preparation is of potassium cyanide, and for use of the same effect, you use prussic acid, and the preparations are similar; the potassium cyanide, of course, is very well known, and they would explain the symptoms which Dr. Schiedlowsky described, and would be also of a quick death.

Q: Did Dr. Ding later report to you about this poison experiment?

A: No, he did not.

Q: The witness Kogon on page 1185 of the English Document Book, page 1216 of the German's, testified that before this experiment that Ding was excited. Can you imagine for what reason this was?

A: I myself would have no explanation for it, if I had not read the book by waiter Poller, which he wrote as a medical clerk at Buchenwald. He described Dr. Ding very carefully, from the period of 1938 to 1940, and he asserts that as official he repeatedly killed inmates by injection, and each time before such killing he was very much excited. Then he said this changed when observed soon established in my memory was to me so typical that later I had only to note this change in him in order to know that he intended to commit a murder, or a crime. I should think that this characteristic should explain Ding's conduct in this case.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, in this connection I come back to Document Mrugowsky's No. 29, on page 177, in Document Book Exhibit Mrugowsk's Exhibit No. 36, Document 29, page 177. Exhibit No. 36. I should like to read the last paragraph on Page 181.

While making my investigations, I also discovered that there was a hole, 40 cm deep, in the floor beneath the office desk of the shelter marshal (Bunkermeister), in which a strong box containing poison had been kept. However, even prior to Koehler's death the poison had been thrown into the lavatory and flushed away by order of the shelter marshal, so that its type could not be determined anymore. The origin of the poison remained unknown. Dr. Morgen.

(A recess was taken.)