1947-06-13, #1: Doctors' Trial (early morning)

Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Number, Germany, on 13 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.

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

The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.

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

There will be order in the court.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in Court?

THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all defendants are all present in the court.

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

Counsel may proceed.

PROFESSOR IVY — Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION — Continued

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Dr. Ivy, at the close of yesterday's session I was beginning to take up the matters pertaining to the various reports by Rascher, and by Ruff, Romberg and Rascher, and I should like to have you read parts of these documents, keeping the context in mind, after which I desire to obtain your opinion as an expert.

DR. SEIDL (Dr. Seidl for defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser and Fisher): Your Honor, I object to the questioning of this witness in the manner in which it has been done so far, and as apparently the Prosecution intends to continue. This witness was introduced into this trial by an affidavit which concerned itself exclusively with seawater experiments. Now, the attempt is being made to submit a whole series of documents to the witness which are in no way connected with the seawater experiments. The attempt is being made to make the witness an expert on experiments which are in no way connected whats ever with the things stated in his affidavit.

I object to this procedure, and more so because this is taking place at a time and place after the other defendants case have been concluded as far as the defense is concerned.

In addition several of defense counsel have already made their final pleas based on the results of their efforts and already submitted them to the translation division. Therefore the Prosecution had a chance to find out about these final pleas. I consider it inadmissible after the Prosecution months ago finished its case now after the defense completes its case the whole trial in a certain sense begins at the beginning again, and in answer to certain things which the defense has stated the Prosecution brings in an expert who is supposed to answer what the defense stated. The Prosecution when its case in Chief was being discussed already brought an expert before the Tribunal, that is Dr. Leibrandt. At the time when Dr. Leibrandt was examined here in Court this witness was also present in Nuernberg, and the Prosecution would have had the opportunity at that time to question this witness, or this expert before the Court if the Prosecution desires to do so. However, I consider it inadmissible that now, afterwards, the Prosecution examines an expert in regard to documents which contents speak for themselves, at a moment when the Prosecution knows the entire case of the defense by the statements of defendants themselves, as well as by the documents the defense has submitted. I am convinced Control Council Law No. 7 can give no legal basis for this procedure, and furthermore I am convinced that these tactics of the Prosecutor are contrary to the general legal principles of any code of legal procedure, because it is not possible after the conclusion of the entire case of the defense again on the part of the Prosecution to introduce new evidence into the trial.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, I have no comment on this remark other than the fact I request the Tribunal to instruct defense counsel on the theory of rebuttal evidence on the part of the Prosecution, and I want to make it clear to Dr. Seidl in as much as he was not present when I requested this Tribunal to call Dr. Ivy out of of order, as a rebuttal witness of the Prosecution due to the fact Dr. Ivy must return to the states immediately, and on that particular day Dr. Seidl wasn't here, and the Tribunal ruled that we can call him out of order, and he is here as a rebuttal witness.

The Prosecution has chosen to call him as a rebuttal witness that is the reason why he did not appear before this Tribunal before.

DR. SAUTER (For defendants Ruff and Romberg): May I also take the floor. I ask for permission to speak, Mr. President, especially for those of the defendants who now have to suffer most under the present submission of evidence and by the help of the expert are supposed to be condemned; they are the defendants Ruff and Romberg whom I am representing. I agree completely with the protest of my colleague, Dr. Seidl, and I would like to supplement his remark by the following: Already at a very early stage of the trial the defense from their point of view considered it suitable, perhaps even necessary, to call some unprejudiced, completely unprejudiced impartial foreign experts, to call them to court for one or another question, and the defense hoped that within this scope of the examination of these experts the difficult medical questions might be clarified impartially. The questions which this trial brings up are especially difficult for us lawyers. At the time, if I am not mistaken, the court refused the applications of two defense counsels to call two foreign experts. Within the circle of the defense counsel we at the time, of course, discussed the attitude of the court, and at that time we reached the conclusion that there is no point in making applications for calling further experts, as the court had told us their negative attitude toward us. Now at the very last moment of the trial and I really have to say, gentlemen, at the very last moment of the trial, the Prosecution comes with a foreign expert, whom we are seeing here for the first time in the courtroom here, and by this means the Prosecution tries to overthrow the entire evidence submitted so far.

I do not consider that correct. We defense counsel have always been of the opinion that here especially, before an American Tribunal, we want to conduct the trial in an absolutely fair manner, and I believe that this cannot be brought in agreement with the fact that yesterday the prosecution announces an expert is coming, first they say about seawater experiments. The expert, without keeping the prescribed time limit, is called and immediately he starts testifying about high altitude experiments when it had not been announced he would testify about these at all. Now, for the defense the result is a very great difficulty from this way of treating the case. I am a lawyer. I am legally trained, just as the judges are, and of course it is very difficult for me to understand these medical questions, even though due to the half year period for which the trial has lasted I have learned quite a bit about these medical questions. It is for the defense absolutely necessary that these difficult questions be prepared in discussion with the defendants in an adequate manner. In a short time spent since last night this has not been possible for us. We speak downstairs in the jail through a glass and through bars to the defendants, and we have found out by experience that every question and every answer has to be repeated two or three or four times until we can understand each other finally, and then we have at our disposal for the discussion of all these important questions a period of perhaps one hour. That is the way it was last night. During this short period and under those difficult conditions to go through these difficult questions for which the expert has prepared himself since January is completely impossible for the defense counsel. As defense counsel I require the prosecution that such a witness who has been at their disposal for months, that the prosecution will in advance tell me what the expert is to be examined about, and if the Prosecutor does not do that, of course, I am powerless, and I shall leave the courtroom with the feeling my clients have been treated unjustly, and I appeal to your support, gentlemen.

I cannot be expected, that such difficult and complicated, questions shall be treated by me in such a short time, in such a manner that I have the feeling I have done my duty here. Thus, gentlemen, I ask you not to admit long weeks after the conclusion of the Ruff and Romberg case the witness' testimony as he is examined here as an expert on altitude questions.

DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for Defendant Karl Brandt): Mr. President, insofar as I understand it, the expert has been called as rebuttal witness for the defense evidence. To what extent such a rebuttal is admissible under American law, I don't know very well and I don't believe my colleagues know it either. The heart of the matter, however, is that this expert appears here who should have appeared months ago. We think that the unjust part of the question of this expert speaking about all these questions is that he appears as a foreigner while the experts for which we made application has been refused.

The Frenchman, Georges Blanc, even stated to defense counsel he was ready to appear here and we would all have been ready to submit to this authority. This expert here is an American, who is called here in a case of the United States. We have misgivings to the effect that the witness cannot be free and he must be prejudiced and I want to point out this point in particular.

Therefore, I also agree to the application of my colleagues that the examination of the witness insofar as it exceeds the sea-water experiments should be refused.

MR. HARDY: In that connection, Your Honor, insofar as it exceeds the sea-water experiments, I am not aware that the Prosecution introduced the affidavit from Dr. Ivy concerning sea-water, but it was the defense that introduced the affidavit, and it was the defense counsel who limited him to sea-water experiments.

I think I have perfectly qualified Dr. Ivy to testify on the matters which I am to bring up in this examination. I see no reason why I should not be allowed to continue if the Tribunal sees fit to allow me to continue to examine this rebuttal witness at this time due to the circumstances that he must return to the United States on Tuesday.

THE PRESIDENT: It will be advisable that the Prosecution make a statement concerning the matters concerning which Dr. Ivy will be examined.

As to the foreign experts, requested by the defense counsel, it was never the policy of the Tribunal to order the production of a witness who resided in a foreign country, because it was impossible to enforce the ordering of any witness who had been pretended and who would voluntarily come here. He could be called by the defendants at any time. That was always open to the defendant. But, due to the matters which defense counsel is well aware the Defendants Information Bureau could never undertake to present to summon and procure the attendance of a witness residing in a foreign country as there are too many difficulties and that is a matter of impossibility. The Tribunal adopted that policy in the beginning, as to the procedure in criminal trials. The only procedure we know anything about and are accustomed to is that the prosecution presents its case, the defendants present their case and the prosecution may then call rebuttal witnesses to discuss, consider and testify to evidence introduced by the defendants. This evidence in rebuttal is limited to the defendant's evidence, new evidence is not to be introduced, but just as in the arguments the prosecution offers its arguments, the defense replies and the prosecution replies to the arguments of the defendants The order of acceptance of evidence follows that same principle.

The witness of course is called out of order but he is called as a rebuttal witness, as ordinarily he would have been called after the defendant's close their case. The defendants in no way are prejudiced in calling this witness out of order. They have the privilege of cross examining him and if the defendants can procure any rebuttal witness the case is still open and if they can call any witness who will come here from any foreign country to testify, the Tribunal will hear him. That rule had been strictly understood al all times. It is absolutely impossible for the Tribunal or the Defendants Information Center to bring witnesses from foreign countries.

The objection is over-ruled in calling the witness out of order. The testimony of the witness is perfectly regular according to the procedure which has been and will be followed in this and I assume before all other trials pending before these Tribunals.

DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, in consideration of your decision I then make a new application and ask you for permission to make this application right now. Before I stated the reasons why for a legally trained defense counsel it is very difficult, without having a very thorough discussion with his client to undertake a cross-examination or redirect examination about very difficult medical questions. These statements, which the expert made already today, I could discuss only in part with my clients and what the expert will state today I shall not be able at all to discuss with my clients, therefore, it is absolutely impossible for me during the cross examination to clarify everything that has to be clarified in our opinion. Therefore, I make the request to the Tribunal, in consideration of these special circumstances, without prejudice for other cases, the Tribunal should grant me the permission that the necessary questions about these medical matters, that these questions may be asked of the expert by Dr. Ruff himself, as well as at the same time in the name of his co-worker, Dr. Romberg. This manner of treating the case seems to me expedient as an exception—

JUDGE SEBRING: Repeat that again, I did not understand fully the import of your request.

DR. SAUTER: I should repeat my request? I just stated that last night in the short period at my disposal, it was not possible for me to discuss all these medical questions with my clients adequately, which were brought up by the expert. Yesterday and today the expert, at the questioning of the prosecution, will and has possibly quite extensively discussed a number of questions regarding the problem of altitude experiments.

It is my duty immediately following the direct examination to ask the expert questions and I am not able to do so, as I am a lay-man from a medical standpoint, I cannot do so without having discussed these questions for hours with my client and have clarified them to such an extent that I can ask the necessary questions and make the necessary representations. In consideration of the special circumstances in this case, I therefore asked the Tribunal that during the cross examination that the questions which I should ask, that the Defendant Ruff be permitted to conduct the cross-examination, and they will be clarified and I believe it would also serve to expedite the trial, if a medical, expert a specialist should ask, as a medical expert, the questions of another expert and clarify the medical questions. This should not create a precedent for other cases because this is an exceptional case.

THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, you mean by that your request is that as you examine the present witness that your client may be allowed to come into the pit with you, sit with you at counsel table and discuss with you the questions to be put and if necessary put the questions himself to the witness who is now in the box; is that the point?

DR. SAUTER: Not quite, Your Honor. I would consider it best because the only medical questions which have to be clarified can be clarified during the cross-examination and these questions should be clarified by having Dr. Ruff himself, on his own, ask the questions and conduct the cross-examination. He can formulate the questions, he can understand the answers better and evaluate them better than I as a lawyer. Whether this should be done from his place in the dock where the Defendant Ruff is sitting by having a microphone put in front of him or whether this should be done from some place else, that is up to the President at this time.

MR. HARDY: Of course, Your Honor, the prosecution objects to this procedure. I might point out in this connection, Your Honor, that the examination concerning high altitude will be very limited and defense counsel will have ample opportunity to study with his defendant and perhaps Dr. Ivy will be here until Tuesday and the high altitude will be postponed until Monday.

He can spend Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday interrogating the defendant and they can well prepare the cross-examination at that time.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal sees no objection to the defendant Ruff coming down and sitting with his counsel and possibly asking some of the questions himself to the witness. The defendant Ruff, after the witness has testified concerning questions in which the Defendant Ruff is interested. The Defendant Ruff would be excused from the dock to consult with his counsel if his counsel desires until the time for cross examination arrives. In any event the defendant may leave his place in the dock and come down and take a position at the table with his counsel and stand with his counsel. If his counsel deems it necessary or advisable, defendant Ruff may ask the witness some questions himself as the Tribunal desires to afford every possible opportunity for a thorough cross-examination of the witness and that process might result in shortening the cross-examination and making it more direct and to the point. In any event, after the witness has testified concerning the matters in which the Defendants Ruff and Romberg are interested they may be excused from the court if they desire and consult with their counsel until the time cross-examination arrives.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much.

BY MR. HARDY:

Q: Repeating again, Dr. Ivy, I wish to read portions of several documents and desire that you keep the context in mind so that I can obtain your opinion as an expert. First, I would like to read pare 76 of Document Book No. 21 which is a part of the report made by Rascher to Himmler which is Document NO-220B. This is dated May 11, 1942, commencing with paragraph No. 5 and the sentence. "For the following experiments —". That is paragraph No. 5 on page 76, commencing with the words, "For the following experiments," and concluding with the end of the report. I will read that. The interpreters have that section.

For the following experiments Jewish professional criminals who had committed 'Rassenschande' (race pollution) were used: The question of the formation of embolism was investigated in 10 cases. Some of the VP's died during a continued high altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at a height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under water an ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain vessels and, in part, free air in the brain ventricles.

To find out whether the severe psychological and physical effects as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however before regaining consciousness, some VP's were kept under water until they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened under water an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.

That proves that air embolism, so far considered as absolutely fatal, is not fatal at all but that it is reversible as shown by the return to normal conditions of all the other VP's.

It was also proved by experiments that air embolism occurs in practically all vessels even while pure oxygen is being inhaled.

One VP was made to breathe pure oxygen for two and one-half hours before the experiment started. After six minutes at a height of 20 kilometers he died and at dissection also showed ample air embolism as was the case in all other experiments.

At sudden decrees in pressure and subsequent immediate falls to heights where breathing is possible no deep reaching damages due to air embolism could be noted. The formation of air embolism always needs a certain amount of time.

Now, I should like for you to note particularly the following sentences in this passage — that is the sixth paragraph — the passage:

To find out whether the severe psychological and physical effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however before regaining of consciousness, some VP's were kept under water until they died. When the skull and the cavaties of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened under water an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels and the vessels of the liver and the intestines.

Now, Doctor, if you turn to page 91, Document Book No. 2, which you will note on page 83 of Document Book is a page from the report by Ruff, Rascher and Romberg on experiments on rescues from high altitudes. This is Document NO 402. Now, on page 91, starting with the first paragraph, on the top of the page, with the words:

In spite of the relatively large number of experiments.

This is Document NO 402 which would be page 16 of the original German, the last paragraph on page 16 of the original German, page 91 of the English.

You have Document NO 1402 before you, do you have it?

THE INTERPRETER: Yes, we found it, Mr. Hardy.

Q: Now, beginning with that paragraph, on the top of Page 91, I will quote:

In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily failures (Paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon post-hypoxemic twilight state remains something of a riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack.

Now, I should like to know, Professor Ivy, whether the sentence we have just read — that is, the first sentence we read in the Rascher report — that was Document NO 220 which says:

To find out whether the severe psychological and physical effects, as mentioned in No. 3, are due to the formation of air embolism, the following was done;

has the same general meaning and implication of the two sentences we just read in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher report, Document NO 402, which says:

It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack.

A: Yes, they refer to the same subject matter.

Q: Does the expression "severe psychological effects" in the Rascher report mean the same as the "severe mental disturbances" in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher report?

A: In my opinion, they do.

Q: Does the expression "such a parachute descending test" in the same paragraph of the Rascher report mean the same thing as the expression "descending test" in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher report?

A: Yes. In that connection I should like to point out that in paragraph 5 on page 76 Rascher uses the expression "continued high altitude experiment." In that paragraph that is a different type of experiment from that referred to in paragraph 6 in the same report where the expression "parachute descending test" is used.

Q: Well, did not the experiment about which we have just read on page 76 of Document Book No. 2 — that is the Rascher report, Document NO 220, in which the VP's were kept under water until dead and their blood vessels examined for air embolisms — bear directly on the solution of the "actual cause of the severe mental disturbances" of the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher report referring to page 91 of Document Book No. 2, Document NO 402?

A: Yes.

Q: In view of the fact that Dr. Romberg says he reported the death of three aviation subjects to Ruff, in view of the findings of air embolism in some of the subjects killed in parachute descending tests in Rascher's report, and in view of the interest of Rascher in his report and of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher in their report on the cause of mental disturbances, is it probable beyond a reasonable doubt, in your opinion, that Ruff, when he approved, read or wrote paragraph 2 on page 91 of Document Book 2 which starts with the words, "In spite of", did have in mind Rascher's experiments of air embolism?

A: In my opinion, yes.

Q: Can you be a little more elaborate and tell us why? Tell us what you base your opinion on, Doctor.

A: It has been the theory for some time that the symptoms associated with decompression or pressure drop sickness may be due to the formation of gas bubbles in the blood vessels of the brain or collection of gas bubbles in the regions of the joints or the collection of gas bubbles in the blood vessels of the lungs.

When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels of the brain they are supposed to cause a physical or mental disturbance or paralysis. When the gas bubbles collect in the region of the joints, they are supposed to cause pain in the region of the joints. When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels in the lungs, they are supposed to cause the chokes or attacks of coughing.

That has been a theory that has been held for some 15 or 20 years, and one in the field of Aviation Medicine must have know about it for sometime.

Secondly, if Rascher had observed bubbles as is described in his report, document 220, and since Dr. Ruff was associated at the Laboratory at Dachau, since Dr. Romberg was there, obviously these findings of Dr. Rascher could not have escaped the attention of Dr. Romberg and Dr. Ruff. It is for that reason that it seems to me to be logical to deduce that Dr. Ruff must have known about the findings described in document 220 when the report or document 402 was written,

Q: And the language on page 91 —

THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Just a moment. The Tribunal would advise Counsel for defendant Romberg, that if Counsel would like his client to sit beside him at his table, the client may do so. The defendant Romberg also, it appears that defendant Romberg's Counsel is not present. If defendant Romberg would like to chose some other Counsel to act for him in this cross examination, he may do so. Both of the defendants may come down and sit at table with their Counsel while this examination is proceeding, now. Understanding the Counsel desired that this procedure he followed, the Tribunal directs the defendant Ruff and defendant Romberg also, step from the dock and sit at the table with Counsel.

DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, when the report from which quotations are read, I would request Mr. Hardy to state the German pages of the document, too, because it is very difficult for me if I only hear the English page numbers, to find the quotation, and by the time I have found the quotation, Mr. Hardy has already gone on to another question.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I will request the Interpreters to refer to the page number. I am unable to read German.

THE PRESIDENT: The Counsel's request will be complied with.

Now, in regard to the defendant Romberg's Counsel not being present, I would ask him if he will chose any other Counsel that is present to sit beside him, if he desires.

(No reply from defendant Romberg)

I understand defendant Romberg is content to sit beside defendant Ruff withought having any other Counsel designated.

Counsel for the Prosecution may proceed.

Q: In view of your opinion concerning these two reports, then, do you feel, Dr. Ivy, that the language contained in page 91 of the document book 2, the paragraph beginning with "In spite of...", was obtained from the result of experiments by Rascher?

A: No, the point I am making is, because of the nature of the subject matter, and a prior knowledge from the observations in the Rascher experiments, the ideas expressed in paragraph 2, document 402, cannot be separated from those in the paragraphs, the contents of which we have been discussing on page 76 in document 220.

Q: Thank you. In so far as experience in research in Aviation medicine is concerned what was the order of seniority in the case of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher?

A: I should say that Dr. Ruff, is senior, because of his experience and standing; Dr. Romberg, second, because of his experience and training; and Dr. Rascher, third. That is their scientific seniority.

Q: Well, under such conditions is it not likely that Rascher got his idea to look for air embolism from the two men with the experience, namely, Ruff and Romberg?

A: That is possible, unless Rascher had access to literature on the subject of the cause of decompression or pressure drop sickness, and got his idea from reading the literature.

Q: Well, are you able to ascertain from the evidence here whether or not Ruff and Romberg had knowledge of such books as Rascher may have had access too?

A: No, but it is very reasonable to assume that Ruff and Romberg had access to the literature on this subject.

Q: Is it not the usual practice in any laboratory for the senior investigator to assume charge, especially when life is endangered?

A: Yes.

Q: The senior investigator has the greatest responsibility, does he not?

A: In my opinion he does.

Q: Assume for the moment that I was acting as your assistant in a laboratory, say at Wright Field, United States, in a field of high altitude research, and at that time I was experimenting on a human being, and had him up to an altitude of 18 to 20,000 meters and left him there until such time as he died; and, during the course of this experiment you were able to observe electro-cardiograms, to observe the conditions of the experiment; would you, then, have assumed responsibility and stopped me?

A: I should have, yes.

Q: Is that your duty to stop me?

A: I personally should consider it so.

Q: Assume that you were not my superior, that is, I was not working as your assistant, but that you were an observer, but a senior investigator; in the same problems would you still feel it was you duty, as a scientific investigator, senior, to stop me if life was to be endangered?

A: It seems to me it would be my moral duty.

Q: In Rascher's experiments in which he killed human subjects at high altitudes, and examined the blood vessels of the brain and other tissues; was the purpose of his experiments to examine the blood vessels of the brain and other tissues, when he killed people at high altitudes?

A: On the basis of his reports, at least it was one of his objectives.

Q: On page 6583 of the official transcript — you have the German page number for that?

INTERPRETER: Yes, page 6677 in the German text.

Q: On the page of the transcript, Dr. Ruff testifies that five to ten minutes are required for bubbles to form at an altitude of 12,000 meters; is that correct, Doctor?

A: Yes, I agree with that statement.

Q: He testified further that when bailing out at 15,000 meters and falling in an open parachute, these people were at heights about 12,000 meters for three minutes; is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: He concludes that since the subjects were only about 12,000 meters for three minutes, the bubbles in the picture from Rascher's autopsy cases, could not have occurred with the probability that bordered uncertainty in experiments from rescue from high altitudes. Do you agree?

A: I do not agree with the explanation that it may occur on the basis of probability that basis on uncertainty for this reason, that we know on the basis of development of symptoms of decompression and pressure drop sickness, on the basis of x-ray evidence, that bubbles may form at an altitude as low as 30,000 feet. There is some evidence indicating that bubbles may form at an altitude as low as 25,000 feet; hence it is possible for, in this particular case, for the bubbles to start forming at the original altitude, we shall say 47,000 feet, and the formation continued as slow paralysis occurred. So, the fact that the subject was at an altitude between 47,000 and 40,000 feet only about three minutes does not preclude the possibility that bubbles formed in this particular subject are continued to form in this particular subject at lower altitudes as expostulated by Dr. Ruff. Now, by submitting this testimony or explanation, I do not mean to imply that this particular subject was one of the subjects referred to as being a subject of slow decent or one of the subjects in the Rascher report.

I simply want to correct scientifically the interpretation which the witness himself on page 6583 gave.

Q: On page 6592 of the record — what page is that in German?

INTERPRETER: Page 6686 in the German transcript.

Q: On page 6592 of the record Ruff testifies that he knew that these deaths — three reported to him by Romberg — had not occurred in the experiments for rescue from high altitude but in other experiments which Rascher carried out on orders from Himmler and answers:

There was no occasion to mention these deaths in this report.

That is Document NO-402. That's the final report of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher. If Ruff based his statement that he knew these deaths had not occurred in the experiments of rescue from high altitude on this preceding deduction could he be justified in concluding that the three subjects did not occur in his and Romberg's subjects?

A: No. As I pointed out I do not believe that explanation that was given on page 6592 of the record shows that the subject referred to as having gas bubbles in his blood vessels came from a continued high altitude experiment. It was reasonable to believe that subject came to a slow parachute descent experiment.

Q: Hence it was a question of rescue from high altitude?

A: Yes.

Q: In the case of the first death Romberg in his affidavit, which is Document NO-476 on page 2 of Document Book II, states that he was recording and studying the electrocardiogram and then later he testified that this death occurred in one of Rascher's experiments and not one of his and Ruff's. Is it possible from your study of the documents that this first death could not have been one in the field with which Romberg and Ruff were concerned and could have been a death of one of their subjects?

A: Either is possible. It could have been a death resulting from one of Rascher's continued altitude experiments or one of the experiments involving rescue from high altitude.

Q: On page 6920 of the record — would you kindly give the German page number, please?

INTERPRETER: German page 7011.

Q: Thank you. On page 6920 of the record at the bottom of the page Rascher is asked — pardon me, Romberg is asked:

Now you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you?

Romberg replied, quote — this is the question on page 6920, the last question at the bottom of the page, the question beginning:

Well, now here are some tell tale remarks of this connection—

This is the last sentence in that paragraph of the question which I will repeat:

Now, you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you?

To this Romberg replied:

No, the air bubbles which one sees in an autopsy are not proof of this. They didn't necessarily have anything to do with it. One cannot say that the picture of gas embolism necessarily leads to the symptoms.

Now, are these statements or this view correct according to best opinion Dr. Ivy?

A: Best opinion at the present time is that symptoms of decompression sickness — pressure drop sickness — are due to the formation of gas bubbles in the tissue or blood vessels.

Q: Then, this view is not the best or widely accepted opinion on the subject?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever publish an article on this subject?

A: I have published two articles on this subject and the Committee on Decompression Sickness of the National Research Council of the United States is writing a book on decompression sickness and evidence collected comes very close to establishing the bubble theory of symptoms of pressure drop sickness as a fact. I might say that the most convincing evidence in support of this bubble theory in the case of symptoms of pressure drop sickness is that if the subject breathes oxygen for one, two, or three hours before going to high altitude, in order to wash out the nitrogen from the body, bubbles do not form and the symptoms of decompression sickness do not occur.

Q: Well, then in summation the best opinion on the subject is that the symptoms of decompression or pressure drop sickness is due to bubbles in the blood vessels and tissues.

A: Yes.

Q: And you say the best evidence of that is the fact that breathing oxygen for an hour or so to wash out nitrogen of the body is the only way to prevent the symptoms and the formation of the bubbles?

A: Yes.

Q: Is there any other explanation of how the pre-breathing of oxygen prevents the symptoms?

A: None other.

Q: Doctor, will you please refer to page 6928 of the record.

INTERPRETER: Page 7919 in the German transcript.

Q: Now, Doctor Ivy, on page 6928 of the official transcript of this trial we read Romberg's description of the circumstances surrounding the first death. Now, will you refer to page 6933 of the record and I wish to read on page 6933 — the German page number for that, please?

INTERPRETER: 7024.

Q: The question and answer at the bottom of the page to which Romberg answers:

It was not so clear to me that he was a murderer, neither morally or legally is it quite clear, I said already.

As a physician and a scientist having studied the circumstances surrounding the death of this prisoner, what is your opinion?

A: It appears to me that the killing could only be viewed as an execution or as a deliberate killing or murder. If these subjects were volunteers the deliberate killing could not be an execution it could only be a murder.

Q: Will you read page 6932 of the record, going back one page.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, court is about to recess. I would ask the defendant Romberg if he knows where his counsel is?

DR. ROMBERG: My defense counsel has been informed by telegram but I don't know whether he can come back. I expect him to come back today but I am quite satisfied with being represented by Dr. Sauter.

DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, regarding representing Dr. Romberg, there will be no difficulties because during the past week I have anyhow every evening when I spoke with Dr. Ruff I also discussed his case with Dr. Romberg in order to be able to represent the interests of Dr. Romberg during the absence of his defense counsel. Therefore, Dr. Romberg will not interpose any objection.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. Now counsel understand, not only counsel for the defendants Ruff and Romberg, but other counsel as well, that if in connection with this examination counsel desires to consult with their respective client, it will be arranged that they may do so at any time, at noon, or may be excused from the Tribunal for consultation with their clients if they desire upon request of the Tribunal. Any such reasonable requests will be entertained. The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.