1947-06-11, #4: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 11 June 1947.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please take their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
WILHELM BEIGLBOCK — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal having reconvened, notes the absence of defendant's counsel, Dr. Steinbauer.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, Dr. Steinbauer is on his way up to the courtroom. He misunderstood the Tribunal and thought this afternoon's session would not begin until three o'clock.
DR. STEINBAUER: I humbly beg the Tribunal's pardon. I had supposed that the court would reconvene at three o'clock. That is why I was late.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel being present, counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Beiglboeck on chart No. B-2 we find under the date 29 August, the 16th day of the experiment, an initial on the side of the chart "HP" or "C". Could you explain to us whether that is an "HP" or an "HC"?
A: That must be "HP". That was the time when we were looking for a hypertonic solution.
Q: Would you kindly repeat your answer, Dr. Beiglboeck, as to the meaning of this initial under date of 29 August?
A: Many cases were interrupted by drinking and some by intravenous injections and some, as I said before, through a stomach sound. This was a hypertonic injection, namely, through the veins.
Q: Well, is this some sort of a puncture?
A: No, an injection into the vein.
Q: An injection into a vein? Well, did you perform any punctures?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you perform any cisternal punctures? Cisternal punctures?
A: You mean an occipital puncture? No, I can't do that. I don't know how. Never did that in my whole life nor do I know for what purpose in thirst experiments such a puncture would have been performed. That would have been senseless.
Q: Did you perform any lumbar punctures?
A: In individual cases in the sea water experiments I did perform lumbar punctures.
Q: Did you perform any liver punctures?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, this is Case No. 3, your Honor. I will request the Tribunal to mark these three charts A-3? B-3? C-3. Now, this case No. 3, Dr. Beiglboeck, is also a hunger and thirst case, is it not?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you kindly read us the name of the experimental subject contained in the top left hand corner of chart A-3?
A: Bernhard.
Q: Spell that.
A: Yes that is Bernhard.
Q: Kindly spell that for us.
A: B-e-r-n-h-a-r-d.
Q: Now, under the 21 August on chart A-3, under the 8th day of the experiment, does the markings therein where the German words "Hunger D" appear indicate the state of the experiment?
A: Here also you must deduce from the weights that the experiment began on the 22. I do know that all the experiments began on the 22. I believe I recall now that on the day before, in the morning, I wrote down that there were to begin hungering and thirsting there and that is why that arrow was made there. 58.5, then on the 23 another weight, then on the 24th another weight, and so on.
Q: The arrow with the blue circle found under date of 22 August, the 9th day of the experiment, on chart B-3, was put on this chart one year alter the experiments were completed?
A: As I have already said I put down all these arrows when I re-evaluated these curves but I can't tell you when that precise date was.
Q: How many days was this person subjected to hunger and thirst if we assume that the experiments started on the 22 as you allege?
A: The experiment was interrupted on the 8th day.
Q: On the 8th day? Now where do you start to count the first day?
A: 22. On the 8th day at noon, at 12:30, starting on the 22. Let me point out that from the 26 to the 27 there is a loss in weight of only 700 grams. This loss occurs when a person hungers without thirsting. That is certain proof that in the meantime this experimental subject had drunk water.
On other days he lost more than a kilogram and on this day 700 grams. This is one of those cases where the experiment was disturbed by the subject drinking.
Q: Well, can you ascertain from looking at the section of the chart under the black blunt line in the middle of the chart and examining the vertical red lines which indicate the urinary output that this subject was getting water to drink?
A: You cannot ascertain that from the amount of urine from a person who is thirsting. You can ascertain that from a person who is thirsting from sea water. You can't tell that when a person is thirsting because at the moment he received water he absorbs a great deal of that water. You can see that after the conclusion of the experiments when a man drank 2 ½ liters and only eliminated 500 ccm in his urine. In other words the subject does not excrete all but absorbs a great deal of it. In this case the amount of urine is no reliable proof for the fact whether he drank or not. However, the difference in weight a person who is thirsting loses is a reliable proof. For it is impossible for a person thirsting not to lose weight, because he has to eliminate water not only through the kidney, but also through the lungs. In the other cases that we will come to those who normally received a good deal to drink and only fasted and got the same food, they lost daily 500, 400, 600, grams and you have to deduce from that that this man although thirsting and fasting, is eliminating only 100 or 200 cc of water through his lungs, his kidneys, or his skin. That is impossible. This man here certainly drank. He even admitted it. Moreover it can readily be seen from the relationship of the red corpuscles. The number does not increase from 5,900,000 that he had, but decreases to 5.7 and then to 5½ million and this is certainly a sign that the blood was thinned down. That could only occur if he consumed fluid.
Q: Well, now, on the 27 August as indicated on chart B-3, that is the 14th day of the experiment and the 6th day that he was subjected to hunger and thirst, if we assume that the commencement was 22 of August, or 7th day if we assume that the commencement was 21 of August, we note that the language, or words appear "Zu schwach" at the bottom here in line 9, which indicates that the blood pressure was too weak to take.
Now, that appears under 27 August, under 28 August, under 29 August, and continually through the experiment. Now, what does that mean?
A: At first in the preliminary period the blood pressure was taken while the patient was lying down. Those are the records you have there. Then it was taken according to stress. That is known as the stress measure of blood pressure. For this purpose the experimental subject has to move, to take exercise. Usually let him do knee exercises, bending his knees. Now, I told the doctors that if the muscles became dried out, giving certain weakness in the muscles which was to be expected in the case of thirsting, should not be given the stress measure of blood pressure but their blood pressure should be taken only while lying down. That is what the words "too weak" mean. Too weak to do exercise. The man who wrote this down was a Frenchman and if he had known that this would become a matter of discussion in a trial perhaps he wouldn't have chosen this expression. It simply means taken when lying down and after exercise. This young colleague was not one of those who liked to work very much and consequently he wasn't too careful in what terminology he chose.
Q: Then, those entries of "too weak" under the dates 27th, 28th, 29, 30th and 31st of August, do not indicate that the subject is ill?
A: This is Case 3, I see. He had some intestinal difficulties. This experimental subject, I remember now —
Q: (Interrupting) Would you kindly repeat your answer to that last question, Dr. Beiglboeck, and at this time, Your Honor, I request the interpreter in English to speak louder because I have difficulty hearing the English over the voice of Dr. Beiglboeck.
A: Can I go on? In this case, after the experiment was interrupted, the man had intestinal troubles in the form of a swelling of the abdomen. For a long time, he had not eliminated any solid waste material and so he had some pains and, for that reason, he was given strychnine in order to start his bowels moving again.
Q: Well, Doctor, did the entries "too weak" under the 27th of August indicate that there should because for worry about this patient's condition?
A: When a person is thirsting his musculature goes through a certain change. There is no cause for concern, namely, the muscles become weak because the muscles are dried out. That is no cause for concern, as he has perfectly normal temperature and pulse. It is a weakness in the muscles brought about by the fact that the muscles have been dehydrated because the man is thirsting. If you thirst for several days, the muscles will greatly change. They become hard and there is a certain debility in them.
Q: Even after those symptoms appeared you continued to keep him on the hunger and thirst experiment until two days later, isn't that correct?
A: This effect on the muscles is brought about by the thirst. This is one of the symptoms of thirst. You do not have a thirst condition unless you have this symptom. There is nothing dangerous in it. There is only one dangerous situation that can arise in a thirst experiment and that is the moment when the body has lost more than a certain percentage of its body water.
Nothing else is of any importance or danger.
Q: Well then, do you maintain that these marks "too weak" indicate that, because of the lack of water, the patient was unable to get out of bed?
A: That means that the muscles had given up-water. That is a typical symptom of thirst.
Q: Well, what would be necessary to take the blood pressure of a patient in such a condition as that? Couldn't that be taken under any circumstances?
A: I did not get that.
Q: Couldn't the blood pressure of a person in a condition as set forth in Chart B-3 under the date 27th of August, the 14th experimental day, couldn't that blood pressure be taken under any circumstances, or was it necessary to say "too weak" to take the blood pressure?
A: The blood pressure has been regularly measured here when the man was lying down. If you measure blood pressure after the person has exercised — he has to go through some movements to take this exercise, and, since I didn't want these men, if they were already having difficulties with their muscles, to go through exercise, I told them "We won't have you get up any more. We'll measure your blood pressure only when you are lying down." This does not mean that we stopped taking their blood pressure. This was a different method of taking it; to writ, when the man is lying down and not after he has gone through exercise.
Q: Well, in scientific recordings of experiments when you are recording blood pressure isn't usually the first blood pressure the blood pressure of the person while lying down and the second blood pressure is while a person is standing, and then a third entry would be made for blood pressure after exercise? Isn't that customary?
A: The custom is that you take a first measurement when the man is lying down and then after movement. There are various methods, but the important thing is to ascertain the change in blood pressure that occurs between measuring it when the man is lying down and when he has exercised. This is the typical method.
Q: Now, on Chart B-3, under the date 28 August, the 15th day of the experiment, would you kindly explain to the Tribunal just what these four entries mean? One with 350 cc, 150 cc, 40 cc, etc., of various drugs? Would you explain each one of those entries, please?
A: This entry belongs to the next day. This is the fluid that was used when the experiment was interrupted. The intravenous injections.
Q: Well, why didn't you place that entry under the next day rather than place it under the date 28 August?
A: That is a question I should have to ask the medic who made the entry. This arrow obviously means that the experiment was interrupted and any introduction of fluid was an interruption of the experiment. I suppose that some one first entered the urine here and then the next person could not find space for his entry in the proper place. That is something I knew very well at the time because it is clear that the interruption — it is perfectly clear that the introduction of this fluid into the person meant that the experiment was interrupted. That the interruption actually occurred is evident from the weights.
Q: Well then, this entry in pencil, under the 28th of August, on Chart B-3, indicates that this subject was given 250 cc of sterofundin, 100 cc of saline, 40 cc of glucose and 1 cc of kolamine, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you explain to the Tribunal just what kolomine is?
A: Kolamine is a circulation stimulant.
Q: That is, a heart stimulant?
A: A drug that affects the circulation, not the heart. I usually gave circulation drugs when interrupting the experiment not because it was necessary but because the heart had theretofore been working under different conditions. You can see that the pulse sinks here. In other words, there were cases of thirsting and fasting — as we know also from fasting cures — where the pulse and circulation is considerably slowed down. If he received fluid, all of a sudden the amount of the blood in the body is changed. Thirst leads to a reduction in the amount of blood, and in order to make this sudden change more tolerable to the heart I introduced occasionally this drug to effect the circulation, as you will see from many graphs. That was not any part of the treatment, but a prophylaxis.
Q: Well now, we notice here, on the date of 30th of June, on Chart C-3, a considerable rise in temperature curve is continued for a period of four days. That is, the 30th of August, 31st of August, and the first and second days of September, and the continued administration of strychnine to the subject.
A: I told you why that was. This man had an intestinal disorder, and a man who has not gone to the lavatory for many days, if he suddenly develops a swelling in the abdomen, you must assume that he is having difficulties with his digestion. Strychnine was simply given him as a tonic. His temperature maximum is 37.8, then it goes down to.2 and up again to.4. 37.3 is an increase in temperature which would not be mentioned in any text book as a state of fever.
Q: Well now, on the 3rd of September, the last day of recording, which is indicated on Chart C-3, we note a considerable drop in the temperature of the patient. Was that drop a fatal one?
A: This drop could not have been fatal because it was followed by a subsequent rise. It seldom happens that a dying person's temperature rises. That is almost impossible.
Q: Well, is this case of Bernhard one of your most troublesome ones?
A: He was one of the few cases that had a complication is so far as he had this difficulty with his abdomen. Then, I had the two cases with the muscular cramps. That was in Case 1, and then another one will turn up later. You can't speak of this as a serious or difficult case.
Q: Let's look at Case #5 for the moment.
If your Honors please, I request that these three charts be marked "A-5", "B-5", and "C-5".
Now, could you kindly tell us the name of that experimental subject?
A: That I can't tell you.
Q: Has there been an erasure in that document in the space —
A: Yes, but certainly not by me. That is a handwriting that I do not recognize.
Q: Could that name be Getz, G-e-t-z?
A: That could be F-e-h, or it could be F-e-t-z, but so far as I remember we did not have any subject by that name.
Q: Is that your handwriting?
A: No.
Q: Is that your handwriting of which the impression is legible beneath the handwriting you deny to be yours?
A: No, that isn't either.
Q: Do you know whether or not that document has been altered here in Nurnberg?
A: Certainly not by me.
Q: Did your defense counsel alter it?
A: I am convinced that he did not.
Q: Now under the 27th of August on Chart B-5 we note a pencilled notation which has been crossed out in blue pencil, do you see that?
A: Yes.
Q: What appears there prior to that crossing out in blue?
A: Acetone positive.
Q: Did you perform a liver puncture on this case V?
A: No.
Q: Under the entry 22 August on Chart B-5 the red arrow with the blue circle at the end thereof, dues that indicate the beginning of the experiment?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you place that mark in there at the time of the experiments at Dachau or at some later date?
A: I have already told you that I put down all of these marks when I evaluated the experiments. They were all put down later.
Q: Now, the mark under the date 21st of August on Chart -5 on the 8th day was put in at the time of the experiment at Dachau, is that correct, under "D", and the arrow?
A: It is the same in every case. Every experiment began on the 22nd of August. That can be seen very clearly from the weights. I can only continue to reiterate what I have said, on the day before I determined who would hunger and thirst, who would get sea water, etc. and that indicates that the experiment would begin on the following day.
Q: Then if an expert looked at this and did not consult the weights he would, think the experiment began on the 8th day, the 21st of August, and. then you changed your mind and began on the 22nd -there are two marks indicating the beginning of the experiment?
A: Every specialist would look, first of all at the weights, otherwise he wouldn't be a specialist.
A: Let’s turn to No. VI. Will the Tribunal kindly mark these A, B, and C. A — Let me say regarding case five that there is a change in weight from one day to the other where a man loses only 200 grams in one day. He too then must have drunk water.
Would you kindly notice Sheet A-6, the section where the names should appear and tell us whether or not that name has been erased?
A: I can't tell for sure.
Q: Well, is it customary to make out a set of charts on a patient and not put his name on anyone of the three charts you made out?
A: I didn't understand.
Q: Did you customarily in the course of your experiment compile data on a specific individual and not put the person's name on the charts that pertain to that particular case?
A: The name of course, is entirely unimportant.
Q: Is it not obvious to you the name once appeared, on this chart A-6, and has been erased; may I suggest to you that the name was Schakowski?
A: I can't read anything here.
Q: Do you see the erasure there?
A: I can't be sure that I do.
Q: Did you erase the name off these charts of the 6th experimental person?
A: I erased no names at all.
Q: Did defense counsel tell you that he erased them?
A: No.
Q: You never talked to your defense counsel about the erasure of names in these charts?
A: No.
Q: Case No. 7, — if your Honors will kindly mark those A, B, C, and D. Now, I call your attention to chart A-7, could you kindly tell us whether or not the name has been erased from this chart, the erasure there is obvious, isn't it?
A: It would seem so, yes.
Q: Do you know who erased that name?
A: No.
Q: Our experts have found that the first three letters that have been erased there may possibly have been the letters L—a—i; does that help your remembrance to tell us who this experimental subject, was?
A: I can see an "L" here for certain. The other letters I am not so sure of.
Q: You cannot recall looking at that erasure just who the experimental subject was, can you?
A: No.
Q: This case No. VII is this the first case of persons given Schaefer water to drink?
A: Yes.
Q: And how long did this person drink Schaefer water?
A: I estimate 12 days.
Q: He drank Schaefer water then from the 21st or 22nd of August?
A: From there on.
Q: If he drank it from the 22nd of August: Does that [illegible] for the urinary output registered on the 22nd, or would it be usual to record a urinary output on the day you began your experiment?
A: From the day on when the experiment began the amounts of urine were set down.
Q: Then if you began the experiment on the 22nd then you would immediately start collecting the urine of the person upon whom you were experimenting, and isn't it more likely that this experiment began of the 21st as indicated by your own red notation on chart A—VII under the date 21st?
A: The amounts of urine were measured for a few days previously in all the cases. I simply had them written down here as a balance. Before the intake was free there was not much point in measuring the fluids or urine before the amounts were strictly measured and calculated. Consequently, the urine was measured roughly from the 16th on.
Q: Am I correct in my understanding that when a person is subjected to exclusively seawater to drink that the urinary output will exceed the intake, disregarding this chart?
A: Then if seawater is consumed the elimination of urine is greater than the consumption of water, but if you have different food, if that is what you mean, perhaps then anyone who is suddenly given less to eat, and these people were taken from 3000 calories down to emergency sea rations, any transition to fasting or sort of fasting cure is associated with elimination of water.
Q: Well, isn't it possible in the first instance the seawater that you applied the Schaefer method to was impure, that is Schaefer method hadn't been applied correctly, and that accounts for the excessive urinary output on the 22nd, of this case B-VII?
A: Literature on fasting throughout the whole world, which amounts to 4,000 pages at least, will readily prove to you that as soon as a person is receiving too little food, there is a vast increase in the elimination of water and that it had nothing to do with incorrect handling of the sea water by the Schaefer method. The fact that the Schaefer water is in order can be seen from the fact that the urine extracted is more than the water drunk and the amount lost through the skin and lungs. It is made apparent in the urine, of course, consequently the figures show here more water was consumed than was eliminated in the urine. If you eat food, which is rather large in salt contents, such as these people received in their preliminary food and then you feed to them sea ration emergency caliber food, then this amount of salt is used up. That is an iron law. Then, for this reason the body must eliminate some more water.
Q: Now, I interestingly note, Doctor, that this experiment continued until the third day of September and then you continued to observe this subject until the 12th or 13th day of September; how do you explain the fact that you observed this subject until the 13th day of September and indicated your observations on charts C and D-7 and did not observe the hunger and thirst group any longer until the third day of September; was that because the ones using or drinking the Schaefer water survived?
A: I can readily explain that to you why that was done. When this experimental group was still in the experiment with Schaefer water, namely on the 1st of September, the second group had already begun its series with sea water and those who were still in the experimental state had their temperatures taken, whereas those who had finished the experiment no longer were having their temperature taken, they were not on the bed but already on the table. Then, more or less by prediction, this temperature watch was continued on the charts here. The measurements of temperature and pulse were not continued because it would have meant a great deal of work.
Q: This is now the chart of subject eight; would Your Honors kindly mark those A, B, C, and D.
Now, on Chart A-8, under date 21 August, the eighth day of the observations, we note that you have indicated that this person was to be subjected to the Schaefer water and then the marks indicating that have been crossed out in red pencil; when did you make those corrections?
A: These corrections were made in Dachau. This was an experimental subject who had diarrhea on the 16th. In other words, a catarrh of the intestines, thus I postponed beginning the experiments on him until his weight was in order. At first he weighed 51.5 kilograms, then after two days of diarrhea, he lost some weight, he then recovered it and attained a weight of 53.3 kilograms. In other words, he gained more weight than he had at the beginning. This is a definite indication that the intestinal influenza he had, had been corrected, and then he started on the Schaefer experiment.
Q: Well, when were these three markings made with the red and blue pencil made on the 21,22 end 23 of August, let us treat with the 22nd of August, that is the red arrow with the black circle at the end there which has been stricken out with the red pencil; when did you make this line?
A: This change from the 21st to the 23rd was made in Dachau. When I looked these drafts over I possibly thought the experiment began on the 22nd and then I saw my error so I crossed out the mark and moved it over.
Q: When did you make the clumsy attempt to erase the lines making a urine output on the 22nd in Chart B-8?
A: I did not erase that, that is not erased at all.
Q: I think you will find that our experts will state that is an erasure there, Doctor?
A: It looked to me as if there was something sticky there, as if something stuck to that part of the paper.
Q: Wouldn't it have been feasible that you attempted to erase the red line in order to conceal sea-water consumption on the 22nd?
A: If I had erased here. I would not have erased the line in the middle of a line. That would really have been sort of stupid as I would have begun at the beginning to erase the line. I would not erase a piece out of the middle of the line as that would be somewhat more or less stupid.
Q: That is questionable whether you would start at the beginning of the line or in the middle of the line; at any rate it is obvious from this document, Your Honors, that someone attempted to erase the red line and seeing the erasure would have been impossible, then stopped.
A: I am absolutely sure that there was something sticky which fell on the piece of paper and for that reason the red line did not take on the paper, that is why it looks as though it was erased, something like rubber or something sticky fell on the paper, maybe it was food.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, the blue line of the draft is also missing as well as the red.
THE WITNESS: It seems to me that something fell on the paper here.
THE PRESIDENT: My question was that the blue line of the draft is also missing; part of it, is it not?
THE WITNESS: You mean this one? Yes, all the lines are broken off or interrupted here. Something fell on it, you can see a larger spot is discolored on the paper. Something fell on the paper. I think that when they were pasting the tables together or something, some of the paste fell on it; that is what it looks like to me. You can see very clearly that the continuation of the lines is there.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: We will turn now to Case No. 9, Your Honor, kindly mark those. Now, this is the case, is it not, of the experiment subject who obviously was too ill to undergo the experiments, hence you dismissed him.
A: This is an experimental subject who had diarrhea on the 16th and on the 20th had bronchitis with a bronchial pneumonia heart; that was an accurate case of illness.
This is experimental subject 9.
Q: This is the case of the Mettbach boy, isn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: Was that the subject that you attempted to call here as a witness?
A: Yes.
Q: And he did not have to undergo the drinking of sea-water in your experiments, did he?
A: But, he saw them.
Q: What happened to him after he had been dropped on the eighth day; did he still stay at the experimental station?
A: He had a relative there who visited him all the time and he was transferred to the hospital.
Q: He was transferred to the hospital on the eighth day?
A: Yes.
Q: While still carrying a temperature considerably higher than normal?
A: At that time when transferred he had a temperature of 39 degrees centigrade.
MR. HARDY: I turn now to Case No. 11, Your Honor. If you will kindly mark these.
THE PRESIDENT: Take these, Mr. Hardy, and place them in order.
MR. HARDY: This, your Honor, is the first sheet. Just a moment —
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Now, this Case No. 11 is the first case wherein we note that the experimental subject was used on two occasions. Is that correct, Dr. Beiglboeck?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, what was the purpose of subjecting this man to drinking sea water for a period of seven days and then terminating the experiment with the lapse of five days and then putting him back on sea water for a period of five more days?
A: This man had drunk fresh water several times. From the 24th to the 25th he lost only five hundred grams weight. Although he was fasting and was losing weight he only lost five hundred grams weight. That is a sure indication that he drank water. Also from the 26th to the 27th he only lost five hundred grams weight although at this time he should have lost that much through the kidney alone. In other words, this would mean that he didn't lose any weight at all from fasting and didn't lose any through perspiration or through the lungs. In other words, it is perfectly clear that he drank freshwater and for this reason the experiment was useless, so what happened here was that for a few days he drank fresh water and then he began the experiment all over again.
Q: Did he revolunteer to be resubjected to sea water experiments? This is a case of a man drinking plain sea water, isn't it?
A: Yes, and he did revolunteer.
Q: And after having drank water and cheated on the experiments during the first seven days he then revolunteered and allowed you to subject him to further experimentation although he found out it was very distasteful and uncomfortable?
A: I have already told you that he did that in order to get those cigarettes I mentioned.
Q: Oh, then after he had cheated you offered cigarettes to him so that he would continue the experiment?
A: When I caught him drinking I told him that he would get no cigarettes and then he came to me and later said he wanted to do an experiment again.
Q: Can you tell us the name of that subject? Look over these three charts and see if you can see any erasures thereof — that is, up in the section where the name should appear. Can you see on chart. No, C11 the name, Siegfried Schmidt, which has been erased?
A: Yes, that's possible. Yes.
Q: Who erased that name?
A: I don't know. I didn't.
Q: Do you know whether your defense counsel erased it?
A: I am sure he did not.
Q: What would be the purpose in erasing the names of these charts; doctor?
A: If I remember correctly, we were to erase all the names at that time. I think we were told then that we were to use no names.
Q: Is it possible that that man's name was erased because he was later exterminated, so that he wouldn't talk?
A: These fever graphs at the end of the experiment I took away from Dachau with me. I returned the experimental subjects under the conditions that I have already described to you with the request that the be treated as convalescents for a few days and that they receive the additional rations promised. That any of the subjects were annihilated, that I considered out of the question, at least in connection with my experiments. Of course, I can't tell you what happened to the subjects later when I was no longer in Dachau. That I cannot tell you but it is sure that no experimental subjects had to be annihilated because of my experiments.
Q: Do you know whether or not the names had been erased when you had these documents in your custody here at the Nurnberg jail in January?
A: I didn't have them in my custody in January. I got them only at Easter. I have already told you that. I didn't pay any attention to the names. I simply looked at the weights.
Q: You mean you didn't pay any attention to the names of the subjects?
A: No, I didn't because I had the names in the black booklet anyway.
Q: Of course, they are not in the black book any more.
A: That is so.
DR. STEINBAUER: Because I have the cover, Mr. Hardy, and you are not going to get it either.
MR. HARDY: Before I proceed to the next case do you wish to adjourn until the afternoon recess? I am going to proceed now to case No. 13, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the next chart?
MR. HARDY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will proceed with one more.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Has the name been erased from this chart?
A: I don't believe that there was a name, only on the last time — it would have been on the first chart.
Q: Is it true that this experimental subject was also interrupted, that he drank sea water for a period of seven days, then was interrupted, then drank sea water again for a period of five or six days, and in the first instance drank five hundred cc's and in the second instance drank one thousand cc's?
A: This subject from the 24th to the 25th, only lost a hundred grams weight. It can easily be seen from this that on that day he drank at least a liter of water. From the 25th to the 26th he lost three hundred grams.
From this you can see for certain that he drank at least a half of a liter of freshwater. In other words, for practically three days this man wasn't in the experiment at all for all practical purposes. For that reason I let the man continue to drink and I proved to him that he had drunk. Then he applied again.
Q: You offered him cigarettes if he would go through further experiments?
A: I didn't offer them cigarettes for that reason. I told him that he was not going to get any cigarettes because he had drunk. Then he said, "I want the cigarettes anyway and I apply again."
Q: Of course, he cheated once and you now were going to let him try again and you didn't know whether he would cheat the second time. How did you decide whether he was cheating the second time? Is this one of the patients you tied to the bed?
A: I didn't tie anybody to any bed. In the second experiment he also drank. Here you can see the gradual loss of weight. You can see from that gradual loss that he didn't carry out the second experiment either in a proper way.
Q: Now, the date "7 September" on Chart D13, we note the red arrow indicating interruption and the initials thereunder in blue pencil "L.P." What does that refer to?
A: That means liver puncture.
Q: What was the purpose of the liver puncture in this instance?
A: I have already told you that Eppinger asked me to make liver punctures.
Q: Why did you only follow this patient for a period of four days; that is, the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th, perhaps, of September after having subjected him to sea water for such an extended period of time when you followed the patients that drank just plain Schaefer water for a period of six or eight days?
A: I have already said that these curves were continued in connection with all the other curves. The curves for the second group to which this man, of course, belongs were continued to the 12th or 13th of September, and since that Schaefer group was still in the experiment when this series began on the 1st or 3rd of September, and since the charts were still hanging on the bed they also were continued. This man went up to 61 kilos, though when he was taken in it was 57.5; that is a clear indication that he suffered no injuries; if he had been injured he would not have been released with a weight higher when he entered the experiment. This man conducted both experiments poorly. He drank so much fresh water that he might just as well have thrown these records of his away. This was no experiment at all.
Q: Now, I notice that this patient or subject used, whose name has been erased was 20 years age. Did you have the written consent of his parents to perform a liver puncture? Did you have the written consent of his parents to perform this on him?
A: No, I did not. You do not ask anybody in the Wehrmacht; nobody is asked in the Reich Labor Service or in the Wehrmacht. No 18 year old boy when inducted into the Army is asked if he wants too. If a man is a soldier and is in pressing need of an operation, the parents are not asked whether it can be carried out. If you wait until that happens the man would probably die in the meantime.
Q: Was this boy in the army?
A: Possibly he was one of the soldiers — former soldiers.
MR. HARDY: This is a good break, Your Honor.
JUDGE SEBRING: I want to ask a few questions.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q: Doctor, in connection with the sea water experiments, what is the purpose of making liver punctures?
A: In some of these cases it was seen that after fluid was again taken into the body the liver — became somewhat enlarged. In my opinion that resulted from the fact that some of the salt from the sea water remained in the liver, and that the enlargement of the liver, which also happens when a large amount of fluid is injected, but is very sensory, in this case because of the residuum of salt in the liver lasted for somewhat longer time.
And, when Eppinger was there he saw that the liver had become enlarged, and asked himself what the cause of that might be; and he said, do take a look into this and make a few punctures so we can find out whether something of a pathological nature has remained in the liver."
Q: What is the technique or procedure for making a liver puncture?
A: There is a local anesthesia administered in the area of the liver and a needle is inserted into the liver so a part of the liver is sucked into the hypodermic needle and that concludes the puncture. It might he compared with and bone marrow puncture.
Q: Did you explain to the experimental subject that you were going to make a liver puncture?
A: Yes, I did. I told him that I wanted to make a puncture; I told him he would feel no pain; I tell him nothing would happen to him. Then I have them the local anesthesia. This is an operation that can be carried out in just a few minutes. Most of the time is used in waiting for this local anesthesia to take effect. The puncturing take less than a minute.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)