1947-06-11, #5: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BEIGLBOECK — Resumed
CROSS EXAMINATION — (Continued)
BY MR. HARDY:
We will now proceed to Case #14, Your Honors. Kindly mark these A-14, B-14, and C-14, Also attached to Case #14 is this microfilm of curves. Professor Beiglboeck, will you tell us what this microfilm purports to be?
A: That is an electrocardiograph. It is not the one of Case 14, but apparently it only slipped in there erroneously, but it is the electrocardiogram of Case 9.
Q: Thank you.
Now, in this Case #14 we note, on the 27th, or on Chart B-14, considerable rise in temperature, and then, on the 29th, an exceptional rise in temperature. Would you tell us, Dr. Beiglboeck, whether or not this was one of the patients you had considerable trouble with?
A: I don't know what you mean by considerable trouble. After an intake of salt solution, it is seen quite frequently that small temperatures arise. That is called table salt fever. With children, such a temperature rise, up to 38 or 39 degrees centigrades. In this case, the temperature went up to 37.6 during the course of an injection of hypertonic salt solution. That is no dangerous event, and immediately after the intravenous injection they had a short rise in temperature. That is something which occurs quite frequently, as I have already stated several times before. That the interruption was really undertaken intravenously is also shown here. On the next day, the temperature was again quite normal and it remained normal.
Q: Would you tell us how long this subject was subjected to 500 cc of sea water?
A: That was discontinued on the 8th day.
Q: Of course, if the mark indicated under the 22nd is the date of the commencement of the experiment, and not the 21st.
A: Yes. I can only again and again give the same answer to the same question. If a person is brought into a condition where he loses water, whether you let him thirst or whether you give him sea water to drink, then the person must lose weight, and this experimental subject too lost 2 kilograms on the first day, then it gradually became less. Furthermore, from the 25th to the 26th, this experimental subject drank water for here, although he is fasting, he lost only 400 grams. He should have lost approximately 1,000 grams. Therefore, it is certain that he drank, and it is probable from the 27th to the 28th, where he lost 600 grams altogether, he drank some water again. Thus, it is an experiment which could not be regarded as a seven or eight day long lasting sea water experiment, because it was interrupted by intake of fresh water several times and, in my estimate, more than one liter.
Q: On the 29th, which is indicated on Chart B-14, what was the pulse rate on that day?
A: 60.
Q: And what was the temperature rate on that day? The highest temperature rate?
A: Well, there was a short rise which appeared after the intravenous injection of liquid. I don't know whether the pulse was taken at the same time too. Probably that was higher too at that time.
Q: Well, isn't it true that when the pulse reaches the rate of 60 and the temperature reaches the rate of 39, that that man is rather ill?
A: As far as I can see from the curve, the temperature was taken in between here. Probably because immediately after the injection he got the chills. As far as I can see, they took the pulse when he had a normal pulse. Probably during the time when he had this short rise in temperature they did not take the pulse. That is an occurrence which disappears quite quickly. This rise of temperature after the injection of physiological salt is not a result of my experiment. It did not happen for the first time in Dachau and had nothing to do with sea water, but it is quite a frequent reaction when liquid is injected intravenously.
Even in the case of a healthy person, this can occur. In itself this is quite an insignificant occurrence.
Q: What marks indicate, under the date of the 29th, that he received injections?
A: That means that by means of intravenous injection of liquid the experiment was terminated.
Q: Is that what this arrow means? The red arrow under the date of the 29th of August?
A: The red arrow? The experiment was discontinued by means of a hypertonic solution.
Q: Now, on the 1st of September, we note that no urinary output is recorded. Was it because this patient may have been unconscious at this time and, therefore, incompetent, he was suffering from a flaccid paralysis of the bladder?
A: It does not mean anything but that this amount of urine was not recorded. Perhaps from that date on, the urine output was no longer measured. You can find that out from the black notebook, whether the measurement of the urine output was continued.
Q: Kindly look at the black notebook and determine that, Dr. Beiglboeck.
A: No, the last measurement in the 14th case is recorded on the 31st of August. That is, from the 1st of September on, the urine output was no longer measured. It does not mean a paralysis of the bladder nor unconsciousness, but one sees that apparently he was feeling very well because, during that time, he had, after all, gained already 2 kilograms and he continued to gain in weight, and I certainly don't know what reason anybody who had been taken out of a thirst experiment should still be unconscious five days later. It is a physiological principle that if somebody is taken out of a thirst experiment and given water, that he recovers immediately.
Q: Well, this is not five days later. This is two days later.
A: Four days. 1, 2, 3.
Q: 1, 2, 3 days it would be then, from the 29th to the 1st. Then how do you explain the fact that you only observed this patient for a period of five days after he had been rather ill, as noted by the temperature curve of the 29th on Chart B-14?
A: If someone, after physiological salt solution has been administered to him, or sugar solution, during a half-hour has a rise in temperature which disappears then immediately, this does not signify that this person was seriously ill but it is a reaction which has been observed more than one hundred times, a reaction to the intravenous injection of liquid, and that he did not have a paralysis of the bladder after the termination is evident from the fact that on the other days when the measurements were still taken there was still a urine output, so if any person should become unconscious and have a bladder paralysis that would occur during the thirst. If it did not occur during the thirst, then it wouldn't have occurred three days later either. That doesn't exist. It is medically impossible.
Q: This is Case #17, Your Honors. Would you kindly mark that A, B, and C and D?
A: You are not submitting Cases 15 and 16.
Q: No, there is nothing salient there.
Now, could you kindly tell us the name of that subject? I note that his name has been erased from A-17 and from B-17.
A: Its probably Oleschkewitsch.
Q: Could that be O-l-e-s-c-h-k-e-w-i-t-s-c-h?
A: Yes.
Q: Who erased that, Doctor?
A: I didn't.
Q: Do you know who did?
A: No.
Q: Can you tell us from the top of that page how old that subject was?
A: 17 years old.
Q: Did you have any written consent from his parents to experiment on him?
A: No.
Q: Did you customarily use 17 year old boys in medical experiments?
A: Normally not, but at that time the War had already been going on for five years.
Q: This 17 year old boy was obviously one of the cheats too; you had to interrupt the experiment because he obviously was drinking water, inasmuch as his urinary output of the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th wasn't substantially more than his intake?
A: In other words on the 25th he had a weight of 47.6 kilos, and on the 26th his weight was 47.3. Then he reduced from 46 to 45.7, and from that to 45.3. And those two time she certainly must have had something to drink.
Q: Then did you interrupt the experiment because he must have had something to drink or was it your purpose here to experiment on this young man for a period of 12 days with an interruption which would assimilate rain at sea?
A: Well, this was interrupted here quite regularly on the 29th. Anyhow, I never had the intention and nobody had the intention to assimilate rain at sea, because rain at sea that is something the experimental subjects produced themselves, not because it was within the scope of our experimental program, but because secretly they obtained water.
Q: Then there would have been no purpose in having conducted an experiment wherein you would have subjected a person to seawater for a period of 6 or 7 days then interrupt the experiment and give him a small quantity of water, and then again put him back on seawater for a period of 5 days in the interim, making an attempt to assimilate an actual rainfall while a person is on a raft in an open sea, wouldn't that be of interest?
A: I do not believe that a person on the high seas could have it happen to him that in five days they could obtain about 10 liters of water, or even more by means of rain; in the interim more than 8 quarts, probably 10 quarts of water were taken in.
Q: When you discovered this boy was cheating had you stopped the experiment and offered this 17 years old boy cigarettes to volunteer for further experiments, is that it?
A: I did not offer him cigarettes. I have to repeat that again and again. Those who did not carry out the experiment correctly and whom we found out, in accordance with the agreement, which I had made before I took the cigarette premium away from them, and then they said, "We want to have cigarettes after all, and in the second group we shall try the experiment again." I could assume the responsibility for that absolutely. If a person during the first experiment lost only small amounts of water for instance the loss of water in the case No. 17, it was only about 7 percent of his water balance that is a loss of water which is absolutely not dangerous.
During the second experimental period he probably lost even loss.
Q: We turn to case 18, if your Honors will kindly mark that in the order of sequence. Can you decipher the name on the chart D-18 which has been erased? Could that possibly be the name Jacob Bamberger?
A: Yes.
Q: Was Bamberger a Jewish subject?
A: No.
Q: You are sure of that?
A: Yes, I am quite certain I had only gypsies.
Q: Bamberger is a Jewish name, isn't it?
A: I wouldn't say so. On the contrary Bamberger is a very wide spread name.
Q: Tell us how long this person was subjected to 500 cc of seawater?
A: This subject was practically very—
Q: Tell us from the charts before you and not your pencilled notes, that is charts B-18, C-18 and D-18, how long was this subject to 500 ccs sea water, you can observe that quite clearly from the charts?
A: On the 10th day the experiment was discontinued and this case shows especially well now such an experiment was carried on; I can show you from the 24th to the 25th that is already on the third day of the experiment he loses 100 gram. It is quite certain that he drank at least one half a liter or half a quarter of water. On the 25th to 26th he does not lose any weight at all, even though suffering from hunger, starving.
It is quite certain he drank at least one quart water, then he loses a kilo. Then he loses 600 gram, and then starts to drink again. Here from the 29th to the 30th he does not lose any weight, thus he obviously again drank from three-quarters to one quart of water. Thus this is a case that during this extended period lost 7 kilos. That this loss of weight during that time was reached is not shown by the first page at all. From that it can be seen without doubt this was not a loss due to lack of water but a loss due to hunger. So that is a case which cannot be considered a seawater experiment at all. The loss of water is —
Q: This person after having been subjected to 10 days drinking seawater was interrupted for four days and put back on seawater again; so in total he drank seawater 141/2 days?
A: Yes, of course one can continue an experiment with seawater for 13 years if in between fresh water is administered again and again. The essential in a seawater experiment is how much water is lost by the body. If the water is replaced again then the body is in the same condition as before. One cannot say the man drank sea water from time to time, if he had done so without interruption this would have been a dangerous experiment. If during the 9 days he was in this experiment this subject had not during 5 days drank a half liter to a liter of water than the experiment would have been a long one.
Q: Let's turn to Case 21. Now, this patient or subject received 500 cc. seawater for a period of 6 days, 6-1/2 days, is that correct?
A: No, he received, two, three, four days, — during 5 days on the 5th day during the night it was discontinued at 2300 o'clock.
I can remember this case quite well. It was a case which had a tetanus attack, during the night at 2300 had a tetanus attack and I was called and caused an interruption. At that time he was given intravenously, or apparently drank 200 grams of mineral water, I guess intravenously, then calcium and then sterofandnm, and then this on the top I can't read it, the mark especially, it was sugar solution.
Q: Now, Doctor, the marks here stop absolutely in a rather erratic manner, and how urine output is shown for the last two or three days, just what happened to this patient?
A: The people recovered completely afterward and as you can see he also was discharged with the weight of 57 kilograms after he arrived with the weight of 55 kilograms, that is he gained 2½ kilograms and I discharged him weighing 2½ kilograms more than when I received him.
Q: What do you rely on to indicate that he was discharged weighing 57/5 kilograms; this mark made in ink at a later date?
A: Here, as in all cases, the final weight is recorded. You can see in all curves it is in the same handwriting, always the hand writing of the French medical student.
Q: Well, now, from the 30th on Chart C-21 to the 31st, we see that this man gained from 50.3 kilograms to 52.9 kilograms, which is approximately four pounds in weight in one day and he continued to gain in the next four days up to 55.9 which indicates he gained in a period of four days nearly ten pounds; didn't you in fact water-log this patient?
A: Naturally the gain of weight takes place very quickly. This is not a specialty in Case No. 21. It is quite obvious the water he has lost in the experiments was was replaced in a very short time. I can read to you from case to case how quickly they gained weight, some lost weight within two or three days and then gained three or four kilograms and the entire amount of water is replaced quickly.
Q: Isn't it unusual to gain four or six kilograms in a period of four days?
A: It is unusual for a normal person, but it is not unusual if someone who had been thirsting now is drinking water. If you now drink two quarts of water and you weigh yourself later, then you would weigh two kilograms more.
Q: Is that pencil note on the back of B-21 in your handwriting?
A: No, it is the hand writing of one of my medical orderlies.
Q: Will you read that?
A: Yes. Subject still somewhat weak; occasionally he has pains in the area of the heart; general condition good; color of skin normal; the muscles not especially irritable; vessels normal without any clinical resuils; heart T, that is heart tone pure, loud and dampening of the heart, not enlarged.
Q: You will note on the back of the page on the sheet A-21 "legible?"
A: Yes.
Q: Is that the same.
A: That is a carbon copy, yes.
Q: Do you allege here that this patient here was perfectly normal at the end of the experiments?
A: Yes, I maintain that.
Q: This is No. 22, Your Honor.
Can you tell us what happened to this patient, he was subjected to sea-water for a period of seven and one half days; was he not?
A: Six and one half, perhaps.
Q: Including three days of hunger?
A: Yes.
Q: Your Honors, I note that this subject on the 22nd — shown on Chart B-22 — was subjected to sea-water, and then on the 25th that is three days after he was drinking sea-water, is also subjected to hunger, so then he had a period of hunger for three days as well as the sea-water?
A: Everyone of these experimental subjects were subjected to the same experimental program. During the first days they got sea-distress diet and then nothing more. That was not a specialty of Case No. 23, but that was the plan of the program and thirsty people are not hungry.
Q: Now on the 22nd the experiments began; but I notice when you evaluated these charts you were rather careless. It indicates here by your little arrow with a circle thereon that the experiments did not begin until the 23rd; now when did the experiments begin on the 21st as alleged by the chart itself or on the 22nd as you would justifiable say by the weights or on the 23rd as you have indicated by the arrow you yourself placed on the charts one year after the experiments began?
A: All of the experiments began on the 22nd, with the exception of this one case, that was No. 7 and that began two days later.
Q: Now this patient I notice also has sort of an irregular temperature and pulse curve and he gained a considerable amount of weight in a period of four or five days; is it possible that that patient became water-logged?
A: This patient at the beginning of the experiments weight 56.6 or 57 kilograms. During the experimental period he lost water and he drank as much as he needed, therefore he replaced the amount of water lost and again obtained the same weight he had before. The restoration of the normal condition, if you call that water-logged, then I admit that he was water logged and was filled up with water.
Q: Now on the last chart, that is C-22, we have a pencil notation on the back thereof; is that in your handwriting?
A: No that is also the handwriting of my medical non-com. It says: Good, general condition; vessels, alright; heart alright; liver not enlarged; dampening of the liver as at the beginning of the experiment.
Q: Is that word translated or interpreted "dampening" or "Dullness?"
A: It means the sound you hear, when tapping on the liver. I don't remember the English technical expression.
Q: Would you kindly read that in German again and I will ask the interpreter whether or not the last sentence could be translated and the last phrase could be translated as "dullness". At the beginning is the word "dullness" or "dampness"; would you read the German Doctor, it is a question to the interpreter?
A: The German word is "Daempfung", it is a certain medical expression. If when the chest is struck and if it makes a sound or if in some places you get a light sound, or in some places a so-called dampening sound as though a damper had been put on it, therefore it says here that the noise is the same as it was at the beginning.
Q: Well, what does it mean?
A: It could be interpreted "dull".
Q: Professor Beiglboeck, what does it mean "at the beginning"; the beginning of what does this dullness or dampness appear?
A: Well, I suppose that in this case too there was a slight enlargement of the liver temporarily and at the final examination, which was apparently recorded on September 12th, I dictated that the sound of the liver was again the same as at the beginning. The man would have been ill only if he at the end did not have that sound of the liver, that would have been an abnormal condition The dull sound of the liver, is a normal condition.
Q: Then this applies to the liver and not to the lungs; you don't mean therefore at the beginning this applied to the lungs but not to the liver?
A: From this, apparently.
Q: Was he a fit subject to be subjected to sea-water experiments?
A: Yes, certainly, otherwise I would not have included him from the very beginning. I examined all my experimental subjects at the beginning quite throughly.
Q: Case 23, Your Honor. How this man was given 500 cc of Berka water for the duration of ten straight days; wasn't he?
A: On the 10th day is interruption, yes. I want to point out here, too, that from the third day to the fourth day there was a loss of weight of only four hundred grams, to the next day also only five hundred grams. That there exists the probability or even the certainty that he drank here. The loss of weight from the next to the last day is also very slight.
Q: This man's temperature and pulse rate showed a decided drop throughout the eight to ten days of the experiment in a somewhat alarming manner. Then on August 30th you interrupted the experiment and have placed here the initials "C.H.". That is on the entry of August 30, the seventeenth day on Chart C23.
A: This is supposed to be "P.H." also. It is always the same. It is not written well.
Q: What was that?
A: That means that some intravenous injection of the hypotonic solution in the experiment was discontinued.
Q: How much did this man weigh on the 30th day of August as indicated on C23, Chart C23? He weighed 53.8 kilograms, did he not?
A: It is written very badly but you can see here it has been transferred. It is supposed to read "59.8."
Q: When was this pencil notation "59.8." put in there?
A: If you will look over the charts this pencilled note is in every one, because this is apparently connected with the fact that the fever chart had not been recorded yet and that on the 29th the weight is still recorded in pencil and was then transferred in ink. That can be seen from curve. In other words, it was written in Dachau.
Q: Then you don't believe that it was 53.8 and that he gained eighteen pounds in one day?
A: That would really be a miracle.
Q: Could it be possible if you waterlogged a person and gave them considerable amounts of fluids that they would gain eighteen pounds in one day?
A: If somebody is given liquid he eliminates as much as he has in excess of what he needs. One would have to cut out the kidneys in advance so that the entire amount of water that a person is given should be retained in the body. You have the excuse me, but I really have to tell you only a bloody lay-person can ask such a question.
Q: Is it possible that this is the man who died of that Tschofenik refers to in his affidavit? This man completed his experiment on the third day of September.
A: As regards the dead persons of Tschofenik, only he knows something about them, and in my experiment not a single one died.
Q: Would you know? You left there on the 15th of September.
A: Yes, certainly, I cannot know, of course, who died on the 20th of September, but one thing I can know as a certainty is that in my experiments and their consequences nobody died of my experiments and their consequences. That I know with absolute certainty.
Q: Do you have any ability to write shorthand, doctor?
A: Yes, I know shorthand.
Q: Are those your stenographic notes on the back of C23?
A: Yes.
Q: Would you kindly read those to the Tribunal, transcribe them? Would that be too difficult or would you like to have me give you my transcription of them to aid you?
A: It says:
The thirst acquires forms that are difficult to bear. The patient is apathetic.
Q: Pardon me, doctor. It might be helpful if you used this transcription. I have had experts transcribe the notes, and the interpreters can follow us more readily and I have the English copies also for the Tribunal to follow you, and if you have any discrepancy to point out with the transcription as set out in the English —
JUDGE SEBRING: Are you offering this, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: That is a problem, your Honor. I want to have him transcribe the notes and when the Tribunal settles who will offer this document into evidence, either the defense or prosecution, at that time, if necessary, I will give this a document number.
I think we will have to wait to clarify that point later.
Q: Would you check that transcription, Professor?
A: That is correct, except in the first line it says —
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q: You have read your own stenographic notes, have you not?
A: Yes, and I have compared them with this transcription.
Q: What you should now read is your own version of these shorthand notes as you say they are correctly read. You understand that? You can read them from this. You can read them from that, as you corrected it. You can read them from shorthand direct or from the typewritten transcription, as you please. Read slowly, too, please.
MR. HARDY: While he is reading that, your Honor, I suggest that he stop at the corrections he wishes to make and we can correct our English copy as well as the interpreters can correct the German copy.
THE PRESIDENT: He will call their attention to the corrections which you make.
A: "The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure". It reads in the second version is "already unendurable". It does not read that way.
The thirst assumes forms difficult to endure. The patient lies there quite motionless with half-closed eyes. The patient lies apathetically. He takes little notice of his surroundings. He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition.
The appearance is very bad and doomed. The general condition gives no cause for alarm.
Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent.
Respirations 25 per minute.
"The eyes are deeply haloes," it is supposed to read. Here it says "open".
The turgor of the skin greatly reduced. Skin dry, tongue completely dry, whitish coating in the middle fairly free.
The mucous membranes of the mouth and the lips dry, latter covered with crusts. Lungs show slight very dry bronchitis, lower border VI-XI.
It is supposed to read "XI". Originally it said "XII" and apparently I corrected it to read "XI".
Sharpened vesicular breathing.
That is omitted here, of course, "breathing".
Sharpened vesicular breathing
— that is a medical expression.
Heart beats very low, poorly audible. Palpability of the pulse felt. Palpability of the pulse worse.
Here is says that the pulse is "felt" and it should be "filled". It is not so well filled — not palpability but the pulse is less well filled, less full.
Then this which is described here as undecipherable reads:
The cell walls are somewhat thickened.
Here I probably said "more strongly thickened".
Liver 2½-3 fingers below sternal margin, rather soft, moderately sensitive to pressure.
"Spleen soft" is wrong. It says:
Spleen reutoric, enlarged in a ring form, slightly enlarged.
Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended more than usual. Calves slightly sensitive to pressure.
Then what is described as illegible here reads:
Indicated welt formation — vertical, strong welt formation horizontally.
That refers to the reaction of the muscle, to the knocking, the so-called ideo-muscular welt.
Q: Would you kindly start that paragraph again and read it as it is written?
A: It reads here:
Musculature hypotonic. Joints can be extended excessively, calves slightly sensitive to pressure; indication of horizontal welt formations. Strong vertical welt formations.
Up to this point this is how it reads in the text, and in order to explain it I added that we were concerned with the so-called ideo-muscular welt.
Further the text continues: "Reflexes" with two little crosses, that is, they react strongly. "Abdominal reflexes", also two little crosses. "Romberg" as it says here. "Babinski negative".
"Left" — here it says "Leif" "phenomenon". Here on the left, "phenomenon of Becher". "Oppenheim negative". Rosselimo negative." "Bulbous reflex bad". "Tenus of the bulb of the eye bad". "Bulbous reflex" with a little cross — that is positive. Interruption.
Q: Now, Professor Beiglboeck, looking over these stenographic notes in the sentence in the first paragraph, which will be the third sentence, which states:
He takes little notice of his surroundings,
— has an erasure been made in the stenographic notes in that sentence?
A: No; I can't see any.
Q: In place of the word "little" which appears in the present text on the back of C-23, was there originally a symbol, stenographic symbol for the word "no" and then the word "no" was erased and replaced by the word "little"?
A: I see here that actually something else had been written there; probably at that time I wrote over it. I don't see anything erased.
Q: Now, in the sentence in the same paragraph, the first paragraph, the fourth sentence where it states:
He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition,
— did another word appear in the same place as the character for "somnolent condition"? Did another word appear in the same place as the character for "somnolent" now appears and can you make out whether or not that other character that has been erased was the word "semi-conscious" and has now been replaced by "somnolent"? I think the original character can be well recognized to read "semi-conscious".
A: What is legible under here says:
Numb, drowsy.
Q: After the sentence that I have just read: "He asks for water—"
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand the witness' explanation of that last double reading of the shorthand. What was your explanation, witness?
THE WITNESS: The German word "benommen", numb.
THE PRESIDENT: Numb? Not unconscious?
THE WITNESS: Numb.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: In the first instance, in the sentence:
He takes little notice of his surroundings
is an erasure noticeable there in that the word "no" has been replaced by the word "little"?
A: Something has been written over.
Q: Will you show that to the Tribunal, please, that character that has been written over? Would you point that out to them, doctor? Point out the character in that sentence:
He takes little notice of his surroundings,
and point that out, this character here (indicating) on the second line of characters.
MR. HARDY: Here it is, your Honor, the last character on the page.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Now, would you show the Tribunal also where the word "Semiconscious" or "numb" appeared and that has also been written over? That is the last character on the third line.
A: Yes, here (indicating).
Q: Now, after the sentence:
He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition,
which is the fourth stenographic line on the back of Chart C-23, we notice that an entire line or half line has been erased. This half-line had previously contained stenographic symbols but they are now no longer identifiable. Is that correct?
A: Yes; something has been erased here.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors can see the red eraser that has been used to erase that half line of characters; the impression of the eraser is still obvious there.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Now, Professor, in the sentence in the next paragraph of stenographic notes, the second sentence reads:
The general condition gives no cause for alarm.
Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, throughout your writing of these characters you, between each words, usually space, leave a space, to indicate another word, do you not? That is very clear throughout your transcription. You have left spaces between each character signifying words. Is that correct?
A: Yes, that differs — well, that differs. Sometimes some words are written closer together, quite closely, for example here (indicating).
Q: Well now, here in this sentence where it says:
The general condition gives no cause for alarm
the word "no" — that is, this character here — does not have the spaces between it that all the other characters on the shoot have, does it? In fact, the symbol for "no" touches the previous symbol for "General condition", leaving no spacing. Did you add the word "no" at a later date in a different pencil?
A: No. I do that quite frequently when something is written above the line in stenography that I write it over again.
Q: Now, if you will turn to the sentence in the third paragraph which reads:
Respiration somewhat flatter moderately frequently
appeared originally, did it not, before an erasure was made? The word, instead of "somewhat", didn't it read originally "Respiration is flatter, moderately frequently"?
A: It still says so: "somewhat frequent; moderately frequent." I wrote that twice.
Q: Well, now, how does that sentence read?
A: "Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent; respiration 25 per minute.
Q: Did the word "is", the character for the word "is", appear in that sentence before a change was made?
A: What word?
Q: "Is" — "i — s".
A: No.
Q: Can't you clearly see in that sentence that the word "is" has been erased and in its place the word "somewhat" has been written, the character "somewhat"?
A: No.
Q: You can't see that. Did you look at it through the glass, doctor?
A: In stenography I write the word "is".
Q: Now, later in this same sentence, Dr. Beiglboeck, after the word "flatter", didn't the word "hardly" appear originally in place of the word "moderately"? The word "hardly" was erased and replaced by "moderately" and then crossed out twice.
A: Here it said "troublesome".
Q: It says, "respiration flatter". It could say "hardly frequent" before the changes, couldn't it?
A: "Moderately" it says here. "Hardly moderately frequent" it could say.
Q: Has the character been changed at all?
A: I said already originally it said "troublesome".
Q: Have any erasures been made in that sentence?
A: It was written over, written over.
Q: Add then crossed out?
A: Yes.
Q: What word was written over? Is that word there that is written over that is now legible the word "moderately" or is that the word "hardly"?
A: "Hardly" it did not say here. It said "troublesome."
Q: Well, which character said "troublesome", the one that is legible now or the one that has been written over?
A: That says "moderately it was troublesome".
Q: Well now, in the sentence which starts out in the eight paragraph with the words:
Heartbeats very low poorly audible
in that sentence has a character been erased and another one written over? Has the character "scarcely" been erased and replaced by "poorly"? I believe the marks of the original symbol for "Scarcely" can still be clearly distinguished, can they not?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Who made these changes, doctor? Did you make them yourself?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: When did you make them?
A: I can't tell you that any more exactly when I did it.
Q: Did you make them at Dachau?
A: No.
Q: Did you make them in Nurnberg?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you erase those shorthand characters that appear on the fourth line here in Nurnberg?
A: Yes, I did that too.
Q: Now, doctor, these notes that are on the back here, I note that you state that the bulb of the eyeball — that the eyes are deeply haloed. That is the fifth paragraph.
What does it mean if the bulb of the eyeball goes soft in a patient?
A: It doesn't mean that they become soft but that they sink back into the head. It is a sign of dehydration.
Q: Well now, we have here in the first paragraph, the paragraph that "Thirst assumes forms difficult to endure," and so forth. Now, in this somnolent condition that is referred to — now, is the half-closure of the eyes in a somnolent patient a bad prognostic sign?
A: The half closed eyes, of course, can also express sleepiness, somnolence. In this case that was the case. It is apathy. One sort of dozes. Sometimes one sees something; sometimes one opens the eyes and then one closes them again.
Q: Well now, had the original word that you had written in that paragraph, that is "semi-conscious" or numbness" — would that convey an entirely different meaning that the word "somnolent"?
A: Semi-consciousness, drowsiness, and somnolence are about the same.
Q: Do you mean if a person is sleepy that that is the same as a person that is numb?
A: Well, I mean sleepy — yes. Numbness, of course, is not the same as sleepiness, but in those cases it was that they dozed. I don't want to say sleepy but they were drowsy.
Q: Could you tell us what the medical term "lagophthalmus" means? I will show you the word, doctor and spell it for the court reporters: l-a-g-o-p-h-t-h-a-l-m-u-s. Can you tell us what that word means medically?
A: Lagophthalmus — that was not a lagophthalmus. It was a drowsy — lying. It says right afterwards that he asked for water. Thus it was not a lagophthalmus.
Q: I haven't asked you whether or not these conditions are symptoms of lagophthalmus. I am asking you what is lagophthalmus medically?
A: Lagophthalmus being the open condition of the lids.
Q: Well, is it a general condition in adult patients which is often found when the patient is approaching death?
A: Yes — well, this condition did not exist here.
Q: I am asking you about the medical term lagophthalmus now, as a medical man. You are a physician. I am not asking you now to compare this with the conditions of this Subject No. 23.
A: Lagophthalmus can arise for varying reasons. Of course, it can also occur in a temporary unconsciousness. It is not a certain sign that the person is near death.
THE PRESIDENT: You have been asked to describe the condition, what the condition is. Now, just please describe the condition in the words stated by counsel for the prosecution.
THE WITNESS: I said already that it is the remaining open of the lids, that they remain open.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Go ahead.
A: Thus by lagophthalmus one means an open condition of the lids with the eyes turned around, the eyeballs. That is, the eyeballs are in the same condition as they are during sleep but the lids remain open; but that isn't what was talked about here. It says expressly that he is lying there with his eyes half closed. If it had been this condition I probably would have used the more appropriate medical term, lagophthalmus.
Q: When did you, as appears in these notations, resort — which is in the last sentence — resort to the bulbous reflex examination?
A: On the occasion of the other reflexes I also examined that one.
Q: What type of examination is that, doctor?
A: It is a reflex. One presses the bulbous and at the same time one takes the pulse.
Q: Could you demonstrate that, what a person does to take a bulbous reflex examination, on yourself?
What do they do?
A: One presses on the eyeball (indicating).
Q: Well, isn't that a test most commonly used to decide whether an unconscious, pulseless and motionless man is dead or alive?
A: No. It is a reflex which in any clinical examination this is examined. In a dead person this is not examined in any case, not at all. It is quite an ordinary reflex such as "Romberg" and "Babinski" and other abdominal reflexes. So the bulbous reflex was examined here too.
Q: Now, the next sentence just above "Bulbous reflex positive" we see the words "Tonus of the Bulb of the eye bad." How, what does that mean?
A: That means that the bulb tonus is bad. It says here the bulb tonus is bad. In a thirsting person this can be seen too, that the eye bull becomes somewhat softer.
A: Hypothetically, Doctor, disregarding this remark about "tonus of the eye ball bad" for the moment, what does it mean medically to a physician if the bulb of the eye ball goes soft in a patient?
A: That can mean very different things.
Q: Does it mean that death is approaching?
A: No.
Q: Under no circumstances?
A: Under some circumstances yes, but here, in a thirsting person, no.
Q: I didn't say in a thirsting person. I said hypothetically, clinically, what does it mean to a clinician or an intern if a patient's — if the bulb in a patient's eye ball has gone soft? Does it have any prognostic sign whatsoever to him?
A: Well, not necessarily.
Q: Now, this test "Romberg 2 plus" or whatever it may be. That does that refer to — Romberg, plus, plus?
What is a two plus Romberg?
A: Romberg is a reflex or an examination concerning the so-called ataxia. Why, in these patients, not only in the one that is described here, but in most cases, it was a positive Romberg, that is connected with a weakness of the muscles. If the muscles are somewhat weakened and one gets up, one is somewhat uncertain and that results in a positive Romberg.
Q: Well, does it mean that the patient can no longer stand on his feet?
A: That means that when he is standing on his feet he is unsure.
Q: Well, isn't that the same symptom as the witness Tschofenik described in the patient who shortly thereafter died?
A: I don't believe that the witness Tschofenik can describe a Romberg. If I remember correctly, the witness Tschofenik described that a long time afterwards. Somebody from the Internal Clinic came and was X-rayed in his station and he thought that this man from the Internal Clinic was one of my experimental subjects. If a condition of thirst is interrupted by the administration of liquid, then this condition disappears and the patient recovers instantly. Later on, he cannot fall ill with it any more. That does not exist in medicine even if you try as hard as you can.
Q: Well, I am not contending that Tschofenik was qualified to determine what a Romberg plus was, but Tschofenik could well have determined whether or not the man who came to be X-rayed was able to stand on his feet, couldn't he? He could observe that as a layman, could he not?
A: Every person who is thirsting has difficulty standing on his feet. After three or four days of thirst it is already very difficult to stand on your feet because the muscles are dry and they tire very quickly and because there is a certain uncertainty of the movements which arises therefrom. This does not mean anything but the fact that the muscles have been deprived of water.
Q: And Tschofenik said that there was nothing wrong with this man's lung condition, didn't he? The man he mentions in his affidavit. There was no other pathological reasons for the man to die, didn't he?
A: Yes, well I believe that the people who Tschofenik let die — that there was no reason that they should die.
The man that we are concerned with here, #30, he was discharged by me with a weight of 60 kilograms —
Q: (Interrupting) Just a moment. Let's stay in Case 23. #30 you can take up later. Do you exclude the possibility that in Case #23 the man you describe in such a condition as indicated by your stenographic notes, is not one and the same man as described by Tschofenik in his affidavit?
A: These stenographic notes refer, first of all, not at all to Case 23 but to Case 30.
Q: Why are they written on the back of case 23?
A: Probably it was lying next to it and I made the notes here before the interruption.
Q: Then, it's Case 30 that the man was in such a condition that he might be one and the same man as outlined by Tschofenik in his affidavit?
A: The man who Tschofenik described did not exist. But these notes refer to Case 30.
Q: I have no further questions today, Your Honor. I will continue the examination tomorrow if you wish to adjourn at this time.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I only want to ask you whether I should order the witness to come again tomorrow. The witness Mettbach.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in that connection, the witness Mettbach, according to the statement of counsel, lives only in Furth, Bavaria, which is only a matter of a mile from here, and I don't see that it will be necessary to call that witness immediately. He could be stalled off until a later date one called at the convenience of the Tribunal inasmuch as he lives only in nearby Furth.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it will be better to wait for that witness until he can be called later since he lives only a few miles from Nurnberg. He will still be available as far as you know as a witness at some later time.
MR. HARDY: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Put these in order. It is called to the attention of all parties that all these records have been impounded and are to be turned over to the custody of the Secretary General.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 12 June 1947)