1947-06-03, #3: Doctors' Trial (afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 3 June 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FRANZ VOLLHARDT — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q: Professor, what experience had your assistant who helped you in your sea water experiments had in sea water problems before that time?
A: None.
Perhaps I could take this opportunity to make a few corrections. I have been told that the interpreter failed to say that I said that the sure proof for the correctness of our experiments — and that the experimental subjects had not drunk any fresh water, was that otherwise they would not have lost as much weight as they did. Moreover, I also said five tines twenty-four hours and I added once eight hours less and once twenty-four hours more, Then I made a mistake saying that the emergency sea rations were 3200 calories for four days. I have been informed that in reality they were 2474 calories.
Then I spoke of students when speaking of my experiments. Perhaps the English word "Students" refers to students in a University or some school. I should like to say that all of them were accredited doctors one of which had taken his Doctor's degree as early as 1941.
Q: You have just said that the assistants who worked over these records submitted to you by the defense had no previous experience with sea water problems. Is that correct?
A: Yes. That is so. Moreover, I had had none either. Moreover I would not have found anybody with any experience in sea water experiments because this was the first time that people had carried out experiments on themselves.
Q: Have you ever before studied questions concerning sea water?
A: Yes, of course I read literature on the subject, even foreign literature including the work of Liddell and a large number of other works, also reports on persons who had suffered shipwreck, the literature on how long after a person had suffered shipwreck he could still be saved, but I cannot recollect any details now.
Q: You had yourself done no practical research on problems in connection with sea water?
A: Not in this field but in the field of hunger and thirst I had.
Q: What do you mean by — you had done research in the field of thirst? What research had you done?
A: I couldn't list all of the investigations I have carried out. That covers a period of, probably, 30 years, and in general, the important element is the behavior of the residual nitrogen. This is the important point, aside from the elimination of salt, and the mechanism that produces residual nitrogen suffers, both in cases of a superfluity and in cases of too little salt because of the lack of water. This example of acute desalination in the case of cholera shows that slag is retained in the blood in the same way as in the diseases of the urinary tract.
Q: Professor, could you tell us the day-by-day clinical symptoms of the experimental subjects in your experiments with sea water?
A: I have already reported on that and said that on the first two days the thirst was not severe, on the third day it became unpleasant, and on the fourth day the thirst was again reduced, and on the fifth day it became very strong, the mucous membranes in the mouth were dried up so that the situation was quite unpleasant.
Q: What about the man who under went the sixth day?
A: He suffered no ill effects at all and said that it hadn't made much difference to him one way or the other. And one of them on the fifty day, attended a court proceedings where he had to defend a friend of his.
Q: Well, can't you give us a few more details about the subjective reaction of these experimental subjects?
A: Muscles became somewhat hard and more sensitive so that if you tap on the muscle a muscle knot is formed but, in general, their ability to work did not suffer. However, they all felt the urgent need for water. I can guarantee that these experimental subjects did not drink any fresh water on the side. The nourishment consisted of meat butter, bread, jam, two eggs, meat and three pieces of candy.
Q: Is this information your assistant has given you over the recess?
A: I looked it up in my records.
Q: And how can you guarantee that these experimental subjects got no additional water?
A: As I said, on the basis of their loss of weight and because I can rely on my assistants.
Q: But you made no blood checks, did you?
A: Blood was also tested—examined, yes.
Q: Are you going to make all of these records available to the Tribunal?
A: Yes, I can do that.
Q: In your expert judgment do you state that the experiments con ducted, by you conformed in all essential details to the experiments in Dachau?
A: I have already drawn your attention to the differences; namely, that my subjects received somewhat more to eat because they were not lying in bed but were carrying on their regular work.
Q: Well, do you think that you would have gotten valuable results from your experiments on the problem which was facing Dr. Beiglboeck?
A: I didn't understand your question.
Q: I say, if you had used Berkatit in your experiments and you used water processed by the Schaefer method and you had fed one group sea water and you had another group abstain from all liquids and all foods, your experiment would have yielded valid results, is that right?
A: I do not believe so, because I didn't expect any results from Berkatit and of the Schaefer method I knew that it would remove all the torments of thirst and I had enough experience, in general, about thirst and didn't have to have any control cases.
Q: Doctor, let's put it a little more sharply.
You apparently are telling this Tribunal that your experiments conformed with the Dachau experiments and you base yourself upon your experiments in reaching certain conclusions about pain and suffering and about the likelihood of injury. Your experimental subjects carried on their daily activities. They worked and they were not closely confined. For what reason was it necessary that Dr. Beiglboeck go to Dachau and carry out experiments on concentration camp inmates? Why couldn't he, as you, have experimented on clerks in the RIM in Berlin. Why couldn't he indeed have used the defendant Schroeder in his experiments? Dr. Schroeder could continue with his daily activities, the only necessity being that he eat and sleep, if that is a particularly material factor, in a certain room?
A: I don't believe it is an expert's task to say why experiments were not carried out in a different way.
They were decided on at a conference at which such eminent scientists as Eppinger and Heubner were present. This plan was drawn up and given to Beiglboeck and he was told to carry it out without any changes.
Q: I won't ask you to speculate, Professor, but you are brought here as an expert on these problems, and I'm asking you if the experiments could not have been conducted in Berlin in a manner similar to the experiments conducted by you?
A: From the reports on the conferences and on what went on before the experiments, it could be seen that efforts were at first made to find other ways of doing these experiments and there is no doubt that Professor Eppinger would have preferred to carry out the experiments in his clinical or in a hospital. But the war situation was such at that time that it was out of the question to making use of a large number of beds and male healthy personnel as experimental subjects for these experiments. In addition, there was a strict order that every soldier, immediately after he had recovered from his wounds should immediately be dismissed from the hospital. He couldn't even stay there for another twenty-four hours, but only as long as was absolutely necessary. That precluded carrying out the experiments on convalescent soldiers. It would have been better in every respect had that been possible.
Q: You didn't carry your experiments out on convalescent soldiers did you?
A: No, but I had enough doctors. I had more than forty doctors at my clinic from whom I could choose the volunteers.
Q: I suppose you read the conference report on the meeting held on the 15th of May? There were about fifteen men—not the 15th of May, I think it was the 24th of May, 1944. There were about fifteen men at that meeting, weren't there? Is there any reason why they couldn't undergo these experiments and continue their daily work without undue inconvenience?
A: It is impossible to presume of the fifteen participants in a conference that they should go to a hotel, or house, or hospital and there subject themselves to such experiments. With all the necessary blood and laboratory tests.
Q: Professor, your experimental subjects didn't stay in one room all the time. They went about their business, didn't they?
A: Yes, but they lived in this room. They were all weighed in this one room and ate in this room and slept in this room and this facilitated the experiment greatly. It would have been impossible even if they hadn't eaten in the same room.
Q: Can you, as an expert, advance one valid reason perhaps other than inconvenience, why these experiments in Dachau could not just as well have been carried out in Berlin in a manner similar to the experiments carried out by you?
A: At that time there was no free bed in any hospital. Everything was over-crowded and it was impossible to find so many beds for a scientific experiment.
Q: Did the experiments have to be carried out in a hospital?
A: Yes, because it is only there that you can find the apparatus and laboratories to carry out the examinations that are necessary-examinations of blood and residual nitrogen, etc.
Q: Professor, are you testifying here, as an expert, or in an effort to justify these experiments?
A: I am testifying here only because on the basis of my observation, I can state that there was no crime against humanity involved in these experiments.
Q: And can you tell us one clinical reason why these experiments could not have been carried out in Berlin?
A: I said, for purely external reasons. Simply lack of room—lack of space.
Q: Did I understand you to testify earlier this morning that you would have had no compunction in going to Dachau and carrying out these experiments yourself?
A: I never would have had this opportunity and moreover, had other things to do.
Q: Didn't you testify that you would have had no objection to carrying out these experiments in Dachau yourself?
A: I spoke of no objections at all. That is not a question that concerns me as an expert, of what I would have done in this case.
Q: Well it concerns me because, as I recall, you testified to that effect upon a question put either by Dr. Marx or Dr. Steinbauer?
A: I cannot recall having made such a statement. I only said that you absolutely had to have volunteers for this. That, without the voluntary element, every such experiment would have been impossible.
Q: What would happen if the experimental subjects were not volunteers?
A: The person conducting the experiment would very soon interrupt the experiment and say that that situation was impossible, or he would have to take draconian measures and lock every experimental subject up in his own cell.
Q: Well, do you exclude the possibility that they would try to cheat if they weren't volunteers?
A: If a person is in an experiment and is not voluntary in it then he will most assuredly cheat whenever he can.
Q: And did you find any evidence in the purported original records submitted to you that the experimental subjects in Dachau had cheated?
A: Yes, that can be seen from one or two of the weight charts. If the subject does not lose weight, that means that he has drunk water on the side.
Q: And your statement that the Dachau experimental subjects were volunteers is simply a statement from Beiglboeck or Becker-Freyseng which you are passing on to the Tribunal, isn't it?
A: No, from the very beginning and for perfectly understandable reasons it was planned that the subjects had to be volunteers, and when Dr. Beiglboeck eliminated three subjects because they were not in good enough state of health, three other volunteers immediately applied.
Q: Did you participate in this planning of these experiments?
A: No.
Q: Then the statement you just made is nothing you know anything about except what was told you by Beiglboeck and Becker-Freyseng, is that right?
A: Everything I know I know only from the sources in question.
Q: If you were submitting these records as clinical data on these experimental subjects without being told anything about it one way or the other and you ascertained as you did ascertain that a number of the subjects cheated, would you be quite so sure in your statement that they were volunteers?
A: I have already said that the fact that the person is a volunteer is not a certain guarantee that the experimental subject will not cheat, you will make that experience with all patients. They feel that they have abided by the rules and doctor's instructions, but nevertheless you find out they did drink water or did add salt and that they did do something — even though they were volunteers -which they should not have done. The motto applies, "The mind is willing, but the flesh is weak."
Q: Of course that is pure assumption on your part as applied to these experiments and the only concrete fact you can testify to is your observations from these purported original records that some of the experimental subjects did cheat and did obtain water, isn't it?
A: You could see that from the record of the experiments.
Q: Do you know what Berkatit is?
A: Yes, I do. That is something to correct the taste of sea water, originally manufactured from tomatoes. It covers up the nauseous taste of sea water so that it can be drunk even with pleasure.
Q: And what is your opinion about the effectiveness and reliability of Berkatit?
A: I consider it completely superfluous, unless in cases of sea distress one prefers to follow the advise of drinking rather 500 ccs of seawater than to thirst.
That could be pleasant to someone if he could drink sea water without it tasting bad to him, but it has no effect on the dehydrating effect of drinking sea water,
Q: You did not use Berkatit in your experiments?
A: No, we didn't have any.
Q: In what form is Berkatit manufactured, is it some solid substance one eats or is it a powder applied to sea water? Just what is its form?
A: I don't know.
Q: Have you ever seen any Berkatit?
A: No.
Q: Then who told you what it was?
A: That became obvious during the course of the conference.
Q: Will you repeat your answer, please?
A: At the conference I believe on the 15th of April or something, I believe, the conference we were talking about yesterday, where there was the discussion about Berkatit and Wofatit, it came to light that Berkatit was recommended by the technical office and given the preference to the Wofatit. Nor, incidentally, have I ever seen any Wofatit, but I am convinced it is a wonderful invention or discovery.
Q: Well, professor, I am completely lost to understand how you can testify anything about Berkatit when you have never seen it. Up to the present time you haven't told me anything about information you have received on it, and there is nothing in the conference report which discusses the content of Berkatit and its process of manufacture on its form?
A: It was said in this conference that Berkatit was simply a taste corrective, and for a doctor that is a concept of which he knows what it means, even though he hasn't seen it or tasted it or actually had it in his hands.
Q: So as an expert you are willing to say that Berkatit is no good although you can't tell the Tribunal what is in Berkatit, how it’s manufactured or its form?
A: Yes, that is right. In this connection I am in exactly the same position as Schaefer who immediately came to the conclusion that if it was simply a taste corrective then it was not any good for our purposes, namely to overcome or correct the dehydrating effects of sea water.
Q: Well, I dare say that Dr. Schaefer has more information about Berkatit than you have; how do you reconcile the fact that Eppinger, who you recommended to this Tribunal as an expert was supporting the use of Berkatit?
A: Of course Eppinger didn't think either that Berkatit removed the salt from the water in the way Wofatit does, but he believed in the possibility that the vitamin content of Berkatit could perhaps contribute to permitting the kidneys to concentrate more salt, and the question that interested him was how long a person could drink such sea water with the taste corrected without suffering serious injury; that is what I assume without actually speaking to him.
Q: But you entirely dismissed Berkatit in spite of Eppinger's opinion.
A: From the very beginning I was of the opinion that for cases of sea distress, in other words to correct the dehydrating effects of sea water, Berkatit could not be used at all.
Q: Now, from the notes which were submitted to you were you able to ascertain how many subjects were used in the Dachau experiments
A: I didn't bother to count them. I estimate or believe I know that there were 44 of them.
Q: And could you ascertain from these records how those experimental subjects were grouped?
A: Yes, I have already said that there were five groups, and I know how these five groups were treated individually.
Q: How were they treated individually and how large were the groups?
A: The first group fasted and thirsted, the second group, Schaefer, the third group had sea water with Berkatit, the fourth group sea water without Berkatit, and the fifth group drank sea water straight up to 1000 cc.
Q: And how many were in each group.
A: I didn't count them, about six, but in one group I think there were more.
Q: And were you able to ascertain from the records how much sea water the group consuming Berkatit was given, that is how much Berkatit processed sea water?
A: In the Berkatit group, 500 cc of sea water were given.
Q: And in what quantities were they given that?
A: 500 cc in portions of 100 cc.
Q: In other words, they were given 100 cc. five times during a 24 hour period, is that right?
A: That is roughly it, yes.
Q: And how long did that continue?
A: The experiments were discontinued after six days.
Q: Could you tell from the records what the reasons for interrupting the experiments was?
A: I believe that fundamentally they did not wish to continue the experiments after the sixth day because from then on the symptoms become very disagreeable.
Q: And how much plain sea water was given to the group that was fed only sea water?
A: One group had 500 and the fifth group had 1000 cc.
Q: How many experimental subjects were in each group, could you tell that?
A: I believe six.
Q: In other words, one group of six got 500 cc of sea water per day and another group of six got 1000 cc of sea water per day, is that right?
A: Yes, that is roughly it, but as I say I cannot swear to the exact number of experimental subjects.
Q: Now, you got this information from these records and not from what Becker-Freyseng and Beiglbock told you; you can tell all this from the records, is that right?
A: Yes, that can be seen from the records, above all from the photostat tables of weights where the number of experimental subjects is along one edge.
Q: How long did the experiments continue with the groups getting 500 cc of sea water?
A: All experiments were interrupted after six days and only in one or two cases they were prolonged for a day or two if the subject had drunk fresh water.
Q: And the group that got 1000 ccs also lasted six days?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you feed any of your experimental subjects 1000 ccs per day for six days?
A: Not for six days. One of my subjects on the last day drank a thousand, because he thought that would in some measure quench his thirst.
Q: And how many were in the group that fasted?
A: Just as many.
Q: And how long did they fast and thirst?
A: Between four and five days.
Q: And you found nothing in these records which indicate to you that these experimental groups suffered any severe pain; is that right?
A: You cannot speak of pain in the case of these experiments, you can speak simply of discomfort, unpleasantness, bad mood attacks, a general fatigue, but severe pain is not caused by hunger or thirst or drinking sea water.
Q: How much unpleasantness and discomfort would be caused; could you tell anything about that from these reports?
A: Regarding the subjective reaction of the subjects, there was nothing to be seen in the records.
Q: The best way to find out about that would be to call in one of the experimental subjects; wouldn't it, Doctor?
A: I believe so, yes.
Q: Did you observe any different symptoms from these records as between the various groups of experimental subjects?
A: Not that I know of; certainly not from the records containing the figures from the general report, that is.
Q: In other words, the ones that were fed sea-water and Berkatit were just as well off as the group that got Wofatit; is that right?
A: No, that is a very serious mistake because the ones who received Wofatit did not have any trouble at all, they got along fine.
Q: But the others did have a little trouble?
A: A lot of trouble, they were very thirsty, very severely thirsty.
Q: As an expert, suppose you tell the Tribunal, if you can, what the symptoms would be each day in a twelve day experiment, using for one group sea water, for another group, Berkatit, for another group Wofatit and for the last group no food and no water?
A: This situation could never arise, because I would never extend a sea water experiment for twelve days unless it was with Schaefer water. I would not let a healthy person go with hunger and thirst for twelve days. The maximum you could expect of a person is six days. From the twelfth day on there is already danger of death. I therefore cannot describe what the symptoms would be on the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh or twelfth day.
I can say that there would be general dehydration and they would be very thirsty indeed and that they would not yet be dead on the twelfth day and that I would never undertake to carry out such an experiment myself.
Q: You cannot give us then the clinical symptoms during the days from the seventh day on?
A: I ask you if you want that information to read descriptions of persons ship-wrecked.
Q: I want to know what would happen to a man if he were fed seawater for twelve days; yes, that is exactly what I would, want to know.
A: Well you can see that from the descriptions of people who for twelve days or more were ship-wrecked.
Q: And what did they have to say about it?
A: I cannot tell you that from my recollection. My memory is no longer as good as 50 years ago.
Q: You cannot testify about that then?
A: No, I can only imagine what it might be.
Q: I am not interested in your imagination unless it is based on some scientific observations you made, you are an expert on sea-water.
A: But I am not an expert beyond the limit when things begin to be dangerous for the life.
Q: In other words, your expertness is based on the experiments you conducted yourself?
A: I know the literature on the subject, but I cannot so reproduce it here so as to be able to testify under oath regarding these matters, but on the basis of my own experiments I am in a position to say to what extent they are unpleasant or not until the sixth day.
Q: You have testified to something about the man who was at sea for seventeen days; is that right?
A: Yes, such reports are available, seventeen days, nineteen days and one group spent thirty seven days on the sea with very little water. Of this group two survived and the rest died. If you want some literature on the subject, I can submit the biographies to you but not from my recollection.
Q: Professor, I am interested in your knowledge on the matter. Now, let us take the case of the man who was out seventeen days; are you familiar with it?
A: I read about it, but at my age one is likely to forget things. I believe I remember he could be revived by giving him water and that very few subsequent illnesses occurred. In cases where persons are ship-wrecked for so long, it does occur that there are cases of bronchitis or pneumonia and there are symptoms of dehydration in the mucous membrane layers similar to those found in diphtheria, but these are all extreme cases at which you wonder that the person survived at all.
Q: Do you know how much water this man had who was out for seventeen days had when he first got into the boat?
A: No, I do not know, but I do know that when he was given water, after he was saved, he improved rapidly.
Q: Well, you just have a very general and hazy recollection of that case, don't you, Doctor? You know nothing about the conditions under which he survived the seventeen days, how much water he had to begin with, whether he had food, fruit juices, if any and how much salt water he drank; day by day you know nothing about the details, do you?
A: No, I am not in a position to testify about fruit juices, food and water and what not from the literature I read some time ago.
Q: Professor, you are probably familiar with the document, which I want to put to you. It is the record of the conference hold on 20 May 1944. This document is NO-177, Prosecution Exhibit No. 133.
Doctor, before we turn to that document, I would like to get your reaction to a statement made by a man who was in Dachau and who had an opportunity personally to learn something about the sea-water experiments. That is the affidavit Tschofenig, Document No. 911, Prosecution Exhibit 139 on page 28, the English document book 5. Professor, Mr. Tschofenig, who was, as I say, in a position to know personally about these experiments, states that the experimental subjects could not eat much food, that some of them had cramps and maniac attacks, that he know that experimental subjects had hurled themselves on the floor and sucked dirty water out of rags used to mop the floor.
Now, are you willing to state as an expert that these statements concerning suffering and thirst are incorrect and unreliable?
A: I don't know these statements but I consider it quite out of the question that the experimental subjects felt it necessary to drink water out of mops, because there were air raid buckets there and if they felt they needed a drink they could drink out of them. Now, insofar as the cramps are concerned, I don't believe that either. None of my subjects had cramps.
Q: Did you say something about them having difficult eating food?
A: Yes, that is so, they lose their appetite because their mouths became so dry they all agreed that they became less and less interested in food from day to day.
Q: No cramps?
A: No.
Q: No mental disturbances?
A: No, I consider that out of the question.
Q: What physical impairments of any sort; no impairments of the eyes?
A: Physical or psychological?
Q: Physical is the question.
A: Weakness, stiffening of the muscles and certain uncertainty in movement, the hardening of the muscles and all these things I already spoke of.
Q: Now, you say there were fire buckets in the room where they were carrying out the experiments?
A: Not in the room but in front of the wash room.
Q: Was this in Dachau?
A: That is what I heard, yes.
Q: Who told you about that?
A: I believe I heard that from defense counsel.
Q: So, it is your expert judgment that it would have been quite unnecessary for the experimental subjects to suck water out of dirty mops; they could have gone out and used the water out of the fire buckets; isn't it?
A: No, those who cheated did not take as much trouble as that.
Q: In other words, if they wanted to withdraw from the experiments, they could do so and drink all the water that they wanted to; that is your expert judgment on this experiment, is it Doctor?
A: No, of course it was made more difficult than that for them, but people like that will of course find a way out somehow and the supervisors are generally speaking are at least 50% on the other side, so that one can never be quite sure there.
Q: People like what, Professor?
A: The assistants who were present there. I think some of them were interrogated. Two young people I think were there, some helpers or some laboratory assistants.
Q: I think I understand you to say that people like that always found it possible to cheat or words to that effect; I want to know what you mean by the reference to "people like that." What were these experimental subjects like, Doctor, in your expert opinion?
A: That I don't know. I would have to read that in the reports. I would have to have it checked on the spot from people who were there. I am speaking generally. When you have 44 people whom you use in experiments, then there is a certain number of people there who supervise and then one isn't quite certain of one's results either. I am just saying that in order to illustrate that in this particular case it has happened and could have happened that experimental subjects actually obtained drinking water.
Q: Let's go to Document No. 177, Prosecution Exhibit 133, which you have before you. As I recall your testimony earlier, you said that you assumed that these experiments were carried out as planned. I put it to you, doctor, that this conference gives us pretty definitely what the plans were. You find the paragraph at the bottom of the first page where it reads:
At this meeting Captain Dr. Becker-Freyseng reported on the clinical experiments conducted by Colonel Dr. von Sirany, and came to the final conclusion that he did not consider them as being unobjectionable and conclusive enough for a final decision. The Chief of the medical Service of the Luftwaffe
— strike that, Luftwaffe is not in here —
is convinced that if the Berka method is used damage to health has to be expected not later than six days after taking Berkatit, which damage will result in permanent injuries to health and — according to the opinion of Dr. Schaeffer — will finally result in death after not later than twelve days.
Professor, in your expert opinion is that a correct statement of what is likely to occur if Berkatit is used?
A: That most probably is a correct statement.
Q: In other words, if you use it six days, you can expect permanent injury?
A: Oh no, I haven't finished. It is correct to assume that after consuming Berkatit injuries may be expected after six days, but permanent injuries to the health of the subject I would not speak about after twelve days have passed, and even then I have my doubts.
If you carry out a sea water experiment or if you have been shipwrecked for twelve days, then I am convinced that the patient would recover without permanent injury, if you succeed in getting him over the difficult initial period of drying out.
Q: Well then, you don't think this is right as you testified earlier, you think it is wrong?
A: That is too strong an expression. After six days you may expect injury to the health, but I don't believe that they are permanent injuries.
Q: Then you wouldn't expect permanent injuries even after twelve days, I understood you to say?
A: I consider that it is possible that even after twelve days, provided the danger point has been passed, no permanent injuries will result.
Q: Well, Professor, of course there are a great number of things that are possible, but as an expert I would prefer you would testify with respect to probability rather than possibility. Now, is it probable that there would be permanent injury after twelve days?
A: Have him repeat that question, please?
(Question is repeated)
No, it is probable. I have said that if a person has lived through those twelve days and if you have succeeded in getting him past the first danger point then it is most probable that he will not suffer any permanent injury to his health.
Q: Is it probable that he will live to the twelfth day?
A: That depends on whether he has no water at his disposal, whether it has been raining, whether he has been able to collect melted snow, whether he has drunk a lot or little sea water. The possibility is very great for a real shipwrecked person to survive twelve days and in an experiment, if he hasn't been drinking more than 500 cubic centimeters of sea water for twelve days, he will probably still be alive and emerge healthy and without injury.
Q: Let's get this very clear, Professor. We are not talking about shipwrecked sailors now who have the benefit of rain periodically. We are talking about the experiments which were the subject of this conference. As I understand it, it was the opinion of Schroeder's office and Schaeffer that death would probably ensue after twelve days. You disagree with that, is that right? You think it is probable that one would survive for twelve days?
A: I consider it possible but as I also said previously during my testimony that beginning with the twelfth day danger to life exists indubitably.
Q: But probably he would live to the twelfth day, is that right?
A: I can't give you the probability factors of that. I said it is possible that he will survive.
Q: Professor, let's continue at the top of page 2 where it says:
External symptoms are to be expected, such as drainage, diarrhea, convulsions, hallucinations, and finally death.
You disagree with that too. don't you?
A: That again depends. That isn't said with reference to a special arrangement for experiments but quite generally. It is generally the development of a shipwrecked case, or in this case on the other hand it says after six days injury to health and thereafter diarrhea. That, according to our experience, is improbable. Convulsions — well, we haven't observed any; hallucinations — that might happen on the tenth day and if a patient dies on the twelfth day then it is quite possible that days beforehand he has had hallucinations.
Q: But you don't agree that the man gets diarrhea? As I recall, you testified to the contrary, that taking sea water causes constipation, is that right?
A: Our experimental subjects, since they never drank all of the sea water in one dose, all got constipated due to the dehydration of the body.
Q: Well, let's continue toward the top of page 2 and see what experiments were planned, Professor, and get your expert judgment about them. The first series is one group of persons to be given sea water processed with Berka; one group to be given ordinary drinking water; persons without any drinking water at all; persons, given to drink according to the present method. Those experiments were to last six days, is that right?
A: Yes.
Q: In your opinion would those experiments give any discomfort?
A: No.
Q: And no injury?
A: No.
Q: Psychical disturbance?
A: That not either, certainly not during six days.
Q: Now, that planning, the second group of experiments, Professor,
persons nourished with sea water and Berkatit, and as diet also the emergency sea rations; duration of experiments: 12 days. Since in the opinion of the Chief of the Medical Service permanent injuries to health, that is, the death of the experimental subjects has to be expected, as experimental subjects such persons should be used as will be put at the disposal by the Reichsfuehrer SS.
Doctor, assuming that the twelve day experiment was carried out, do you still maintain that it is probable there would have been no death and that it is probable that there would have been no permanent injury?
A: Fortunately, such an experiment was refrained from, because that would have got pretty near the dividing line towards endangering life and fortunately the experiment was not extended beyond the sixth day.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, as defense counsel for the defendants Becker-Freyseng and Professor Schroeder I wish to object to the way in which this document is being made the subject of cross examination by the prosecution. First of all this record is being contested by both the defendants and the defense, the reason being that the affidavit of the man Christensen shows clearly that there is no question of there being an authentic record of the meeting which took place at that time, but only a few days later a man by the name of Schickler, who was neither qualified nor entitled to make it, prepared a record from his memory, and he was definitely not a medical man, he was a technician, and what is more he was a prejudiced author of this record, and what is more, one must consider that here we are not concerned with the planning of experiments which would make any claim towards real existence.
It is proved beyond doubt that only when Professor Eppinger and Heubner were there were these experiments planned and that these matters are false and if Professor Vollhardt is to define his attitude at all then we could only be concerned with a hypothesis. In other words, one might say that, assuming this record here does correspond with the truth, which on the other hand we deny, then it could be so, but not as if we were concerned here with a true record of the outcome of that conference, and that in fact no planning for an experiment was carried out at the time, and, therefore, I object to this type of cross examination and I maintain my objection to the record as such in its entirety.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness has testified as an expert witness called by the defense. He is now undergoing cross examination. The rules of cross examination are liberal and Prosecution is entitled to test his knowledge of these matters and has not exceeded the proper bounds so far. Counsel may proceed.
DR. MARX: Mr. President, may I say one more word. There is the additional point that the minutes precisely state under II that the Commission, and this is at the bottom of page 3 of the German text, the Commission for the planning for the conditions of the experiments to be carried out is composed as follows:
Professor Eppinger from Vienna, then a representative of the Hygiene Department, a representative of the Air Force, a representative of the German Air Ministry, and a representative of the OKM, the high command of the Navy.
So, the commission who was to draft the plans for these experiments was only being made up—it hadn't met, but was only to be constituted during a further meeting and then draft plans for the experiments. Thus, in this most relevant point this record is false and therefore the assumption is justified that the record was not prepared on the 23 May but even later after the 26th of May. Christensen, you see, upon my questioning, answered me that it was even possible that it was after the 25th May that this record was prepared and it probably has been ante-dated. For that reason alone, when you read that particular passage, it is quite unnecessary to state that there were no details, that the commission was only being formed and then during a later meeting was to make the plans to be carried out. Consequently, I beg you to take this into consideration and to have further examination of this witness refused.
DR. STEINBAUER FOR BEIGLBOECK: I also object to the type of cross examination carried out by Prosecution, but my reasons are different — they are of a formal nature. It is not proper that an expert witness should be shown a document that a sentence should be torn from its context — without telling him what we are concerned with and without giving the witness ample opportunity to peruse the entire document-to peruse the entire document in his own time and then he would know what is going on.
In order to prove this I would like to point out how Prosecution quoted from Tschofenig's interrogation saying that Tschofenig had experienced all that but in the middle of the second page — the witness is saying
due to my position as responsible prisoner for the X-ray station of the camp hospital insight in the experiments.
Which could have been only a superficial one. Thus, the assertion that this witness was informed in detail is contradictory to facts before this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: When the witness is being cross examined in connection with any certain document the witness may see, examine, and read that document in full if he desires. Otherwise the cross examination may proceed. Objection is over-ruled.
BY MR. McHANEY: Witness, I am not asking you to argue whether this experiment of 12 days as outlined here was carried out, but I understand you are an unbiased expert on sea-water problems, testifying in an un-biased manner, I am asking you to assume that this experiment was carried out and, as it states, it was to last 12 days, and the sole source of water was to be sea water and Berkatit, and I put the question to you as an expert — what in your judgment would have happened to the experimental subjects? Can you answer that?
A: Yes. Without a doubt the experimental person would have managed to get a hold of water some way or other, because even the most enthusiastic volunteer wouldn't continue that long.
Q: Doctor, let's assume that he had no recourse, no access to other water, he was put in a cell, where there was no other water. He had to drink sea water. He had to drink Berkatit. That is all he got and that went on for 12 days. Now, as an expert, what probably would have happened to the experimental subject?
A: After 12 days he would have shrunk considerably and all sorts of symptoms would have become apparent. I can imagine there would have been hallucinations and physical weakness, hardening of the muscles, and so on. But, if a person were able to concentrate he had a chance to survive those 12 days.
Q: Is it probable that the experimental subjects would have died?
A: I wouldn't describe it as being a probability but as being a possibility.
Q: Would you describe it as being probable that the experimental subjects would have survived?
A: That I consider very possible.
Q: Well, is there any probability in here anywhere or just possibilities?
A: In biology you cannot figure out forecast. Much depends on the type of person you are concerned with, how is condition is how he can generally react. One can say generally that danger to life commences after 12 days, one can assume that after 12 days he is still alive
Q: And it is probable that if he survives, as you state is very possible, is it probable that he would have suffered any permanent damage?
A: No, that is improbable that he would suffer permanent injury.
Q: Professor, can one kill a person by making him drink sea water as his sole source of water supply?
A: Yes, of course you can kill anyone if you only give him sea water to drink permanently. No human being can stand up under that, he dries out.
Q: And, as an expert, what is your best estimate as to how long that would take?
A: As I have just said danger to life commences after 12 days. That is a general estimate.
Q: That is the best testimony you can give in response to that question?
He is given only sea water, that is his sole source of water. You can't say anything more definite than around the 12th day it becomes quite dangerous to his life?
A: Yes, I can say that on the 12th day there is danger to his life.
Q: Were you in court yesterday?
A: Yes.
Q: Prosecution would call to the Tribunal's attention rule No. 9(B) of the rules issued by this Tribunal, which requires that witnesses be excluded from court prior to their testimony. We call that to the Tribunal's attention for what ever weight they might wish to give it. We make no motions because that rule was violated in this instance.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, this justified objection by Prosecution can be clarified easily. Mr. McHaney doesn't know this fact that we asked the Tribunal in writing to allow Professor Vollhardt as an expert witness to permit him as an exception to be in court during the examination of Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Beiglboeck. This request by defense was granted in writing by this High Tribunal. Possibly that decision of the Tribunal has not come to Mr. McHaney's knowledge.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Doctor, can you state for the information of the Tribunal whether so far as you know there is any food value in the preparation Berkatit?
A: An actual nourishing value is not contained in Berkatit as far as I know about its composition. I believe that initially it was made of tomatoes and then later on other types of sugar were used, but I don't think this was of any actual nourishing value.
Q: If it should appear that there is some food value or nourishment value in the preparation then would it not be true that over an extended period of time the experimental subject who was taking Berkatit would be placed in the same position as would an experimental subject who was given food but deprived of all forms of water?
A: If Berkatit even did have one to 2 calories then it wouldn't play any part at all since that would be without any inference upon the dangerous quality of sea water which is its dehydrating quality. I would never never dare to continue a sea water experiment with Berkatit longer than a sea water experiment without Berkatit. That is, to say, not beyond six days.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: Professor, these subjects upon whom you conducted an experiment in your institute were very excellent subjects for such an experiment were they not?
A: They were characterized by the fact that they were medical men who understood the meaning and that I could rely on them. Physically, they certainly were no better conditioned, according to the photographs at least, then those rather well nourished experimental subjects.
Q: I was not thinking so much of their physical condition, but they were men who were interested in this work, were they not?
A: Yes.
Q: The results of the experiment — each upon himself and upon each of his associates — would be interesting to each one, would it not? Is that not true?
A: I would assume so, yes.
Q: Each one was entirely controlling his own participation in the experiment, was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: If, at any time, any one of the subjects felt that the conditions which he was undergoing in the experiment were becoming too heavy for him, he would have been released from further participation upon his request, would he not?
A: No doubt he would have reported and he would have said "I want to step out. This is too bad for me."
Q: That's what I meant. He would have asked to be released and he would have been immediately released? Well, is it or is it not a fact that a human being will voluntarily undergo hunger, thirst, pain, discomfort, and stand it better when he knows that he is doing it under his own volition with a scientific objective, than a person of equal physical condition will stand such an experiment when, insofar as he is concerned, he has no personal interest whatsoever?
A: No doubt that is correct and I am perfectly convinced that Professor Eppinger tried everything he could in order to obtain such volunteers. He was most discomforted through the fact that these experiments were carried out in Dachau. He would much rather have seem them carried out in Vienna on his own scholars or students but, at that time, there weren't any students any more. They had all been called up, and medical officers were very scarce so that there was no question of obtaining volunteers. Hence, in this very tense and difficult time, no subjects could be found to carry out such a series of experiments as was planned here in a hospital or clinic or any kind. It would have been better, more practical and more sensible, by all means, if the experiments had been carried out at that time upon medical students, but, unfortunately, that was impossible.
Q: You prefaced your statement, Doctor, by saying that Dr. Eppinger had this sentiment. How do you know that?
A: Because, during the conference, it was mostly Prof. Eppinger who was in favor of these experiments being made and, since Professor Eppinger had earmarked his favorite pupil Beiglboeck, for the carrying out of these experiments, it is a matter of course that Eppinger would have liked nothing better than that these experiments had been carried out under his own control in Vienna.
Q: You are assuming that Eppinger would have felt as you would have felt under similar circumstances, is that correct?
A: I know that all those who were interested in these experiments were making efforts to find places where these experiments could be carried out in a military hospital on soldiers or convalescent patients or other persons, but, unfortunately, everything turned out to be impossible.
You can only imagine the situation if you know how every hospital bed and every doctor was being utilized in this time. That was the final period of the war.
Q: You prefaced this last statement by saying "I know". Now, how do you know? By any other method than assuming that these gentlemen would have felt as you felt?
A: No, I recollect that I have read that in one of the reports, that one had tried to carry out the experiments elsewhere and that one had come across locked doors everywhere. For instance, one had Brunswick in mind, I know that accidentally, the Air hospital at Brunswick, and that was impossible. Thus, all inquiries had negative answers.
Q: I gathered from your answer to one of my questions a short time ago—
I would like to return to that subject — that a person of intelligence will endure more discomfort, pain and suffering, pursuing a voluntary experiment which he knows he can terminate at any moment than a person, probably of less intelligence, would display upon undergoing an experiment which he could not stop at his own volition. Is that correct?
A: Well, there isn't any question that, for those persons in Dachau, the only bait was the good food before and afterwards and the cigarettes that they had been promised. That wasn't possible in the case of my doctors. They did it because they were interested and, of course, that would have been by far the most preferred solution if it had been possible.
Q: And, insofar as the subjects at Dachau, if any of them, at any time during the course of the experiments, believed that the pain or discomfort or whatever it might be called, which they were suffering would not be compensated by cigarettes or other promises which had been made to them, that they would be very anxious then to be released from prosecution of that experiment.
Is that true?
A: Certainly. That's why quite a number of experimental subjects secretly drank water, because the strict pursuance didn't please them too much.
Q: Well, unlike the experimental subjects in your institute, those subjects would not be particularly interested in the result, would they? They had no scientific interest in the result, did they?
A: No, no. None at all. None whatever.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further questions to the witness.
BY DR. TIPP (Defense counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng):
Q: Professor, the statements made by the prosecutor during the cross-examination unfortunately necessitate certain clarifications.
First of all, might I ask you one thing? In your direct examination you have, of course, emphasized the purpose of these experiments. Now, would you finally say just once again what was to be achieved by means of these experiments carried out at Dachau?
A: The situation was the following: After Schaefer had developed the idea of his excellent drug, the question of sea water was solved. Unfortunately, Mr. Berka arrived with his taste corrector and, because of very superficial experiments carried out by Colonel Sirany, the Technical Department spoke in favor of this drug which, from the medical point of view was not suitable because the dehydrating effect of sea water was not being eliminated by it.
Thus, a conflict arose between medicine and technique, and the technicians had the greater force, they had to grant the funds and they said "The raw materials for Wofatit were too difficult to obtain. It is easier for us to manufacture the Berka affair." Consequently, this meeting came about during which the two leading experts spoke in favor of carrying out these experiments although every one of them knew that Wofatit, of course, could not be beaten. But it might have been that Berkatit too had a certain advantage over ordinary sea water and, as I have said, Eppinger was thinking of the possibilities that the concentrating powers of the kidneys might somehow be increased. However, the experiments didn't give a definite supportive evidence of that, but they did have an important result — not only the obvious result, namely, that the Schaefer water was superior to anything else but, also, the observation that the kidney can, nevertheless, concentrate salt so astonishingly well up to the concentration of sea water that, in future, one could give the advice that in cases of sea distress, instead of being completely thirsty, one could rather, drink 500 cc of sea water and, in that manner, increase the salt contents of the blood but would not have to be afraid of dehydration quite so quickly.
Q: Well then, Professor, if I understood you correctly, it was the aim of the experiment to establish whether Berkatit, after all — probably in practical cases of sea distress — ought not to be introduced? Is that correct so far?
A: Yes, that is quite correct, since the aviator wouldn't be quite so burdened by it as by Wofatit.
Q: Then may I put another question to you?
According to what you have said, these experiments actually materialized since the technicians had the stronger influence, as you put it, and since they were being supported by Professor Eppinger and Professor Heubner?
A: In not quite that sense. That possibly they might have gone over to the technicians' side, but they did consider it appropriate not to deprive Berkatit of all its useful purposes.
Q: Well, then, if it hadn't been decided, during that meeting, to carry out experiments — of course, this is a purely hypothetical question, Professor — what could you say on the basis of the details? What would have happened? Would Wofatit or Berkatit have been introduced in practice?
A: I'm afraid the technicians would have been victorious. They would have been victorious over decency.
Q: So you mean that, without these experiments, berkatit would, nevertheless, have been introduced in practice?
A: Yes, I believe so.
Q: And you went on to say, Professor, that the admonition of water with Berkatit, which is equal to sea water, would have done serious injury in practice and, provided it went on over six days, would lead to death?
A: It would have serious consequences after going on for over six days and would most certainly lead to death after —
Q: And you are making those conclusions on the basis of final cases of shipwreck?
A: Yes.
Q: Then, may I put the final question. In this connection, the Chief of the Medical Department, General Martius, and his assistant, Becker-Freyseng, would have been actually irresponsible if this development had been used without the action being taken? In fact the only possibility for preventing the introduction of Berkatit was to achieve that experiments were carried out?
A: It appears that it seemed to be the opinion among responsible persons that, considering the increase in air crashes, one ought to deal rapidly with the question of shipwrecked personnel and achieve the solution.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I must again ask you to proceed a little more slowly. It is rather difficult for the reporters to follow. Ask your questions a little more slowly and the witness will not answer the question until the interpreter is finished with the translation of the question.
Q: Professor, you just said that it was the aim of the expert to clarify whether Berkatit might not possibly after all be introducible, consequently what was further aim, supposedly it was to find out how long Berkatit can be tolerated during the experiment?
A: How long sea water with or without Berkatit can be tolerated.
Q: In this connection, Professor, I might ask you, have you got the sea water document book before you? I will have it sent over to you. May I ask you, Professor, to turn to Document 177, Exhibit 133, which is the minutes of the conference, the one Mr. McHaney had put to you, it is page 12 of the document book; do you have it?
A: Yes.
Q: There is one question I want to put to you with reference to that present test. At the bottom of page 1 of that document you will find the description at the end of the lecture made by Dr. Becker-Freyseng, and it here says that:
The Chief of the Medical services is convinced that if the Berkatit method is used, damage to health is to be expected not later than six days after taking Berkatit, and will lead to death not later than 12 days after.
Professor, according to the underlying idea of the experiments which you have displayed I should like to ask you: to what did your statement refer? To the experiments or to the case of an actual ship-wrecked person.
A: I would assume that this applied to the practical case of an actually ship-wrecked person, since at that stage there had been no talk of experiments. They were only really noticeable in this expostulous report.
Q: We will come to that, Professor, but in the same document the Prosecution pointed out the supposed planning of experiments such as contained herein and on page 2 of the document under Figure 2 he talked about the so-called duration of experiments of 12 days with Berkatit; first of all I would like to ask you, Professor, to look at page 3 of the same document and particularly the end of that page, and it says there:
The Commission for the determination of conditions for the experiments to be carried out is composed as follows: Professor Eppinger of Vienna, representative of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Air Force, representative of the German Air Ministry (RML), representative of the High Command of the Navy (OKM).
If you look at that page, Professor, and then consider the series of experiments which supposedly had been discussed during the conference of the 20th, can you then imagine that during that meeting of the 20th experiments had been decided upon as according to this record, whereas as we have just read the commission only met later, namely on the 25th?
A: The whole picture is that as painted by the layman. No medical man would have written that page, -you can see from the report that it was glued together, and I can assure you that according to my knowledge that humane person as Professor Schaefer, would never have given his consent to a duration of 12 days with sea water.
Q: May I just ask you a final question, Professor —
THE PRESIDENT: You are still continuing too fast, Counsel.
DR. TIPP: Yes, Mr. President.
Q: Then may I put the final question to you, Professor, do you consider it probable considering the aim of the experiments to have mentioned that a duration of 12 days would make sense at all?
A: It would be quite senseless, absolutely senseless.
DR. TIPP: In that case I haven't any further questions on this particular point. I beg your pardon, yes, I do. I have one more final question.
Q: As you stated, you yourself have seen the original records of these experiments, would these records show anything to the effect that during the actual experiments any type of torture was committed or that any incidents occurred which could be described as crimes against humanity?
A: I haven't found anything like that at all, and what is more I consider it absolutely out of the question. The duration of the experiment is too short. During the six days it is humanly no possible that any tortures could be connected with it that you could describe as inhumane.
Q: And that the experiments didn't last beyond six days that is something which became abundantly clear from the records?
A: Yes.
DR. TIPP: Thank you very much. No further questions.
DR. STEINBAUER: Steinbauer for the defendant Biegelbock.
BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q: Professor, since the prosecution has not stepped down I must ask you some more questions; you have been shown photographs, some of which of course, after considerable conferences with medical offices, will be chosen by me and shown to the Tribunal; is it your impression that these people, — as a witness maintained with reference to the transport from Weimar to Munich, — would not have survived such a transport?
A: No, this is not my impression and all you would have to do is look at the trains and circumstances under which people travel from Munich to Frankfurt today.
Q: We could have put these photographs together so they would have been favorable to the Prosecution as well as to ourselves; the Prosecution told you to look at Figure 5. Now let me put a question, you look at that photo and tell me: is there not a possibility that there would be distortion and that the face would show pain when people are given an injection?
A: Yes, that is plain and most people contort their faces during the actual injection and show that contortion more quickly even before the injection takes place.
Q: Then look at the picture and I ask you this question is it not a technical fact that in hypertonic solutions just as well as in thirst it is the lack of water, and that this question of water shortage is the decisive question medically speaking in connection with that question?
A: I thought I had unmistakably said that sea water endangered the life because it drains water from the system of the body. It is a condition of dehydration which arises because of salt and this salt produces dehydration without salt.
Q: That fights the expression in the face.
A: Not quite. I told you my son had quite an emaciated face after the sea water experiment, so that everybody got a big shock. But after 24 hours that disappeared.
Q: The Prosecution first of all made the gypsies die of whom I told you in Frankfurt, and now they would like to revive them and therefore they want their names; could you have given your expert opinion, Professor, if you had no name, would it have altered it in any way?
A: I wouldn't have looked for the names. They are quite immaterial to me.
Q: So to you as a medical man the only decisive factor is what these charts will show to you?
A: But of course.
Q: Consequently, you also heard from me that we were concerned with volunteers?
A: Yes.
Q: Might Dr. Marx have given you any more details than we?
A: No, no.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Prosecution desire to cross-examine this witness upon the questions brought out?
MR. McHANEY: The Tribunal, please, we have no further questions. However, either after the witness is excused or right now I would like to bring up the questions of the names of these experimental subjects, the Prosecution has been put in somewhat of an embarrassing position because the witness has testified all day long about documents which are not a part of the record. On the motion of the Prosecution yesterday the Tribunal, as I understood it, required the production of the documents about which this witness would pass his opinion on, whereupon some purported original drafts were produced, on approximately half of which pencilled names had been erased, by whom or when the Prosecution does not know.
Today some original documents were produced half of which were removed from one cover and inserted in a second book here. I am advised and believe that the first book at one time contained the names of the experimental subjects. I think that it is only proper that the defense counsel be required to produce the original documents and original forms without any deletions or changes whatsoever; that moreover the defense counsel be required to produce immediately the names of the experimental subjects which they have and they be furnished to the Prosecution. We can go to considerable trouble, I suppose, and by use of an infra-red machine have the names raised which have been erased from the original documents. However, we don't care to go to that trouble if we can avoid it. I also don't wish to pursue this matter too far, but we understand that the defense has these names and I think they are required to produce them. I might also add that the photographs of the experimental subjects which were also submitted to this expert and formed a part of his opinion were submitted to you as photostat copies, and show nothing but the cover of the picture. The Prosecution would also be interested in knowing what appears on the back of the original pictures.
DR. STEINBAUER: Your Honors, it is very regrettable that the expert had to be heard before my case came up, since he wanted to depart. All the agitation of the Prosecution then would have been superfluous.
You can rest assured that I would not have felt so safe if I had not shown the list to Professor Alexander. It was not too clever of him not to copy the list as he had it. It is my privilege as defense counsel to decide whether I shall submit it or not, but I am not going to have the Prosecution force me to do so. But, in order to express my respect for this Tribunal, I shall do so at the point when it is most beneficial to the defense of my client. When everything has been cleared up, then the list that the expert did not have and which did not have any basis for his expert opinion will be submitted. I am afraid that these gentlemen will have to be patient until to-morrow, then they will see and hear everything that they want to see and hear today.
MR. McHANEY: The prosecution has no control whatsoever on the way in which the defense puts in his case, but I think we are entitled to have the records on which the expert based his opinion. We have not received the original of the documents which contained the list of the experimental subjects. While certainly it is Dr. Steinbauer's privilege to put in his case any way he sees fit, when original documents are submitted, they should be submitted in their original form without changes or deletions on same. We request original or photostatic copies. We make available our records to him when they go in and we have gone to considerable trouble on several occasions to have original documents, Karl Brandt's for example.
Now, it is his right to put in his evidence as he wills but there also exists the right of this Tribunal to require the presentation of evidence which is known to be in the possession of any one. Just as defense counsel frequently asked the Tribunal and the Prosecution to submit particular documents which they knew we had.
I don't want to be disagreeable about any of this. We tried now for two days to get the names and have not been successful. It is no pleasure for me to be put in this position.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness who testified today was called out of order for his apparent necessity of being in Nurnberg. During his examination he was shown documents to which reference was made, he was also permitted to testify concerning the documents even though they were not presented in evidence. When they are offered in evidence on behalf of the defendant if they appear in mutilated form or are not complete, they should then be objected to and if they are not submitted in evidence, then this testimony given this afternoon would not be considered by the Tribunal.
If the Prosecution wants to be furnished with any of the documents, I suggest that the prosecution make written application to the Tribunal, stating just what is desired, hand it to the Tribunal and the Tribunal will rule on it.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned at 1535 Hours until 09:30 Hours 4 June 1947.)