1947-06-17, #3: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)
AFTERNOON SESSION ( The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 17 June 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed with the offering of documents.
DR. STEINBAUER (Defense Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): I submit as Exhibit #30, an excerpt from the book "Shipwreck Survivors" by Lieutenant Critchley.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not seen to have copies. Are German copies of this document available for the Tribunal now?
DR. STEINBAUER: There are none. It hasn't been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be furnished later, doubtless. See that they are.
DR. STEINBAUER: I now would like to ask the interpreters, from this document which will become Exhibit 30, on the bottom of page 140 to read the paragraph, and then, on the following page, page 62, regarding the loss of weight, and then to translate it into German, if the Tribunal permits.
THE INTERPRETER: Shall I read it, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the interpreter will read the portion of the document mentioned.
THE INTERPRETER: Page 140, last paragraph:
Loss of weight. The professional faster Levanzin lost 13.25 kilos (or 21.9 percent of his original weight) in thirty-one days. The emaciation from starvation is less rapid, however, than that from dehydration, where 4 lb. may be lost a day. In men adrift, the profound loss in weight is due to the combination of inadequate food and water. Exact figures are generally lacking, but losses of as much as 5 stone have been known —
And page 62 on page 141 of the document book:
The victim may have lost considerable weight — 50, 60, or 70 lb., as in some of our cases, but with the resumption of full diet, weight is very quickly regained, indicating that the loss of water had been responsible for much of the emaciation.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it was the intention of Dr. Steinbauer to have that translated into German simultaneously with the English reading thereof—the two paragraphs.
THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, we can't read over the English and German channels at the same time. It has to be done subsequently.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand that, but it is now being done in German, isn't it?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. STEINBAUER: And now, I would like to ask you to read the last paragraph Page 63, that is Page 143 of the document.
THE INTERPRETER: (reading)
Although dehydration is thought to lower bodily resistance, it is significant how very rarely there develops at this stage any of the acute respiratory complications, infective disorders or rheumatic, fibrositic, neuritic or nephritic symptoms, traditionally described as 'sequelae of exposure to cold and wet.'
DR STEINBAUER: May it please the Tribunal, for the time I have no further documents to submit.
My witness, Ernst Mettbach, in spite of the request to appear today, did not come today. Efforts are being made to bring him here now. Therefore, I would like to request the Prosecution, since they, I believe, have two witnesses here—Vorlicek and Pillwein—perhaps they can be examined now. I don't know where they are but perhaps that is possible.
MR. HARDY: It is possible to call the witness Vorlicek at this time. The prosecution, however, does not intend to call the witness Pillwein. The prosecution submitted an affidavit of the witness Pillwein and the defense counsel requested him as their witness, having had him in Nurnberg for a considerable time. Defense counsel, in lieu of calling him to the stand, submitted an extensive affidavit from the witness Pillwein and the prosecution does not desire to cross examine the witness in view of that fact.
However, before calling the witness, I might ask Dr. Steinbauer whether he intends to introduce these charts and records of the seawater experiments which have been under discussion here for a considerable period of time. The prosecution intends to introduce them if he does not. However, I believe that he requested that he wishes to introduce them. I would like to hear from him on that subject.
DR. STEINBAUER: In regard to the last question, Your Honors, I recall the incident that arose during the examination of my client in regard to the fever curves. As the fever curves are in the possession of the Prosecution and since Professor Ivy stated that they are a suitable basis for an opinion about the experiments, I believe that the prosecution should therefore submit these documents. I should also like to use this occasion in order to clarify a further question.
Please let me finish.
MR. HARDY: We should discuss this subject concerning the documents before we go on to another subject. I have extensive number of things to take up concerning these documents. Perhaps we can finish that before Dr. Steinbauer goes on with something else.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it might be well to hear Dr. Steinbauer's second phase of this matter before going into the matter of documents. Counsel for the defendant may proceed.
DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): As far as the documents are concerned which are under discussion here, the matter are as follows: The prosecution based its evidence on Document Book 5 which contains minutes of meetings and statements of witnesses regarding the seawater experiments. Now, I made efforts to gather evidence material, and around Christmas time, I found two notebooks. One that had a black cover and another notebook which I would like to call the gray notebook. Professor Beiglboeck was very happy about the discovery of these two notebooks because they contained a number of facts which gave him the possibility of reconstructing his experiments in his mind. He had been a prisoner since March or the beginning of April, 1945, and a prisoner under investigation pending trial.
On the 20th of January, professor Ivy was here, and I was here, and I was informed that this professor was interested in the seawater experiments. Professor Beiglboeck on this occasion showed these two notebooks to Professor Ivy. Both of us assumed that it was a purely scientific interest of Professor Ivy's; and according to his entire attitude, it was entirely scientific because he was interested in the seawater question.
Professor Ivy said at that time that he especially studied the 1,000 cc Group; he said; all of these fellows drank water, and that it was a very diligent, scientific work, and too bad that it was undertaken in a concentration camp. These two notebooks —
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, —
DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): Just a moment, let me finish, please. These two notebooks were never in the possession of anyone else, but were always in my own possession. On the occasion of this discussion, at which a member of the prosecution staff was also present, it was found out that the so-called black book had the names of some of the experimental subjects on the front page. I kept these notebooks, I had them in my custody. And in the beginning, or the middle of May, I don't remember the exact date anymore at the moment, I was requested to give these notebooks up. At that time, I stated that I would not hand them over because they contained in part the names, and I do not feel that I have the right to help the Prosecution in their research. I also stated that there are names on the fever charts, and that I should not submit them, even if the danger exists that the expert opinion of Professor Vollhardt should not be accepted by the Court. I should like to remark here that Professor Vollhardt used these fever charts as the main basis of his testimony, in addition to some other documents Professor Beiglboeck had; and he used these technical fever charts.
When I received the order to hand them over, I stated that I should give them up only without the names. So that the Tribunal should not think that I was trying to deceive the Court, I told a number of my colleagues before at that time, and they can testify to that fact, that if the Court wants to see these names, I shall give them to the Court at the moment when the trial is concluded.
Now, my client committed this stupid act and put me in a bad light, too, in public. I then discussed with my colleagues whether I should at that time take the legal consequences and resign from my position as defense counsel I did not do so for the following reasons: When I agreed to take over the defense of Professor Beiglboeck, I had heard only good things about him, but he was represented to me as a very weak and sensitive character, a man who is subject to moods. I was informed that he was torn from an excellent career, chased away from his position, robbed of his apartment, robbed of his books, his library, that he had a serious nervous breakdown, and in that condition he was delivered to the Vienna Police Department in the Spring of 1946. I seldom have had as much trouble as with the defense of the defendant Beiglboeck, because it was very difficult with a man who is as absolutely broken to reach some kind of an understanding with him. He only assured me again and again that he was innocent and that he was being persecuted unjustly. I tried to convince him that this was not true. I can state to the Court here, and witnesses can confirm this, that in the middle of February and at the beginning of May I prevented him from committing suicide, that Beiglboeck is still in a condition as good as he is now we can thank all of his comrades in the dock for, who assured me again and again that he is a nice fellow, and they will do their best the cheer him up. Therefore, I believe that it is not in accordance with my legal obligations as defense counsel, now that when I have already finished my case and when the prosecution's case in chief is finished, — I didn't know the prosecution would bring new witnesses now and new evidence — I don't consider it in accordance with my duty to leave him alone now because right now is the time when he needs more help than ever; and therefore, I believe that I should continue my difficult task further.
This matter brought me into an unpleasant position myself. I want to emphasize expressly that my cooperation with the prosecution was always a good one, a good relationship. I think that Mr. McHaney can also confirm that I said I should submit the list of the names, and if the Court desires it, I shall be glad to do so. Before I do so, I should like to see the witness; I should like to do that at the end. I have this cover with the names here, and as I said, all of my colleagues, who are always together with me in the morning, were told by me, before this incident occurred, that I should submit this list to the Court so that the impression should not be created that I tried to deceive the Court. The motive was that in the case of the experimental subjects which we were concerned with, they were primitive simple people who, as I already tried to make clear from the gypsy book, in large part belong to families who are listed by the public authorities as asocial. I found 17 among these names who belong to asocial families here in Bavaria. I do not want to say anything about the experimental subjects, who suffered terribly. But if the matter should be followed up further, one would have to get a police record of everyone, and the family tree, and then one would certainly find that my statements are correct.
It is a tragedy that there is a certain confusion of persons here, Dr. Beiglboeck says Dr. Popper is guilty, and he confirms again and again that he never did a thing to his colleagues; and that especially he was not present at the time when Popper was dismissed from the clinic, and that — the professors who are now in Vienna can confirm this — he regretted those incidents at the time and even disapproved of them, I cannot say anything more about this whole affair.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is mistaken, if I understand him correctly, in one statement, and that is that the Tribunal directed that these books, documents, records, and charts be turned over to the Prosecution. The Tribunal took them into custody with directions that they remain in the custody of the General Secretary only, to be examined by either counsel for the Prosecution or the Defense in the presence of someone designated by the Secretary General. The Tribunal never directed that they should be burned over to the Prosecution, and I have no reason for supposing that they ever were turned over the the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, a correction there. During the examination of the witness, the expert Vollhardt, the testimony of Vollhardt was based on the charts; and at that time, the Prosecution had requested that they be allowed to study the charts so that they could properly cross-examine the witness; and at that time, the Tribunal issued the order that Steinbauer give up the charts for study. I think that is perhaps what he is referring to.
THE PRESIDENT: Technically, the papers were still within the custody of the Tribunal.
I had forgotten that.
I think counsel is correct as to that, but that was after they had been examined by — that was before Beiglboeck took the stand. The Tribunal is of the opinion that Dr. Steinbauer, counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck, is not subject to censure in this matter. The Tribunal appreciates his forth-right direct statement with these matters and feels — that is, the Tribunal is presently advised upon his statement that his conduct has been that of an honorable lawyer. The Tribunal feels that, or is of the opinion that all these records and documents, having been before the Tribunal, having been shown to the witnesses, having been exhibited to the Tribunal, should now be made exhibits in the case, because a great deal of the evidence concerns those documents. The Tribunal would direct that these documents should remain in the custody of the Secretary General and become exhibits in this case, and be marked as exhibits in some appropriate manner and that this should include the covers of the books so that the books will be in exactly the same condition as they were when in the possession of the defendant Beiglboeck. That will be the order of the Tribunal, and I understand that counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck is ready to comply with that order of the Tribunal, am I correct, counsel?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. HARDY: Would it be possible for Dr. Steinbauer to reconstruct the names that were erased from the charts or does he think that beyond the realm of possibility?
THE PRESIDENT: The erasure of the name from the charts is not referred to by the defendant Beiglboeck. The defendant Beiglboeck doesn't admit erasing them. He later admits he had altered the stenographic notes on the back of one of the charts.
If these charts can be reconstructed by adding the names — many of them were admitted by the witness on the stand, and the record will show many of the names. In as far as the names can be restored to the original document it should be done.
MR. HARDY: Not on the original document, but on a separate document.
THE PRESIDENT: On those daily charts — I don't know how you refer to them.
The Tribunal approves Dr. Steinbauer's conduct to continue under these circumstances and represent his client in this trial.
MR. HARDY: Will defense counsel introduce the exhibit or will I introduce it as prosecution exhibit?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understood that counsel for defendant Beiglboeck stated at one stage of the proceedings these would be offered as defense documents. In case Dr. Steinbauer does not care to take that position they will be offered and will be received as prosecution exhibits.
MR. HANDY: Thank you.
DR. STEINBAUER: I shall give the number 34 to this document, to the document and the notebook, and after the session I shall also give the cover to the prosecutor so that the names on this cover can be seen by him, and I shall give the original as a document to the Court. For the moment I shall need it for the examination of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents are still officially in the custody of the Secretary General pursuant to order of the Tribunal. When they are marked, they shall be an exhibit and remain in the custody of the Secretary General, as all exhibits are in that office.
MR. HARDY: In that connection, when Dr. Steinbauer turns over the cover and list of names, they should be turned over to the Secretary General, and the prosecution can peruse them by referring to the Secretary General for them. Now, in addition to that there is the problem of the reproduction of these documents. After a period of three or four more days we will be well through this complex of sea water experiments, and I ask that the Tribunal direct the Secretary General's office to have these charts reproduced. I don't think it is necessary to reproduce the two books but we would like to have a photostat copy made of each chart and the back of each, which contains penciled statements, so that the defense counsel may retain a photostatic copy and the prosecution likewise.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General is directed to reproduce these charts by photostat, including these stenographic notes and any other notes which may be found on the back of these charts, and make these available to the prosecution and to the defense.
MR. HARDY: If there is no further discussion concerning these documents and the charts, I would like to call the witness Vorlicek to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for defendant Beiglboeck anything further?
DR. STEINBAUER: No, I have nothing else to say. I only have one request: that I may be permitted to submit other documents, especially also an expert who never had the opportunity to look at these charts, and that the affidavit which I submit in the document book can be supplemented by the affidavit of Professor Glatzel, and later then shall be permitted to submit the supplementing affidavit, and not submit it now.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may submit documents within a reasonable time that he desires to submit them to the Tribunal. They will be admitted.
The Marshal may summon the witness Vorlicek.
JOSEPH VORLICEK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will stand, hold up his right hand, and be sworn, repeating the oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
Has the prosecution prepared a witness sheet for this witness?
MR. HARDY: Due to the fact he was called without notice I haven't.
THE PRESIDENT: One should be prepared and filed as soon as convenient.
Counsel may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Witness, your name is Joseph Vorlicek?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you kindly spell your last name, please?
A: V-o-r-l-i-c-e-k.
Q: When and where were you born?
A: I was born in Berndorf, near Vienna.
Q: Will you kindly outline briefly for the Tribunal the extent of your education?
A: For eight years I went to elementary school, public school.
Q: Did you have any further education, witness?
A: No.
Q: What was your occupation prior to the time you were arrested for treason in December 1939?
A: I was a truck driver.
Q: Did you always live in Vienna?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you an Austrian national?
A: Yes.
Q: When was the first time you were placed under arrest?
A: 1939.
Q: Had you ever been arrested for any criminal offense prior to that time?
A: No.
Q: What was the reason for your arrest in 1939?
A: Preparation for high treason.
Q: Who arrested you?
A: The Vienna Gestapo.
Q: Were you given a trial?
A: Yes.
Q: And you were sentenced to imprisonment?
A: Yes.
Q: And for how long?
A: Four years in the penitentiary.
Q: Did you fulfill that sentence?
A: Yes.
Q: After fulfillment of your sentence were you then released?
A: No, then I was sent to Dachau.
Q: When did you arrive at Dachau concentration camp?
A: On the 6th of March, 1944.
Q: How long did you remain at Dachau?
A: Until the liberation by the American 7th Army.
Q: When you arrived in Dachau, what were your duties? Were you assigned to a work detail?
A: No, first I was sent to Block 15. That was for eight days; then I entered a commando work detail.
Q: At any time did you ever work in the concentration camp hospital?
A: I was only a patient in the concentration camp hospital.
Q: Did you ever work in the experimental wards of the hospital?
A: I assisted my comrade Pillwein.
Q: Do you know Professor Dr. Beiglboeck?
A: Yes.
Q: How did you happen to know him?
A: I was in Block 11 where at the time experiments were being conducted.
Q: How did you happen to get your job as a nurse in the experimental ward wherein the sea water experiments were being conducted by Dr. Beiglboeck?
A: Pillwein came to me and asked me whether I would like to help him in his work. The food was better there.
Q: What was that name, please, who first asked you?
A: Pillwein, Fritz.
Q: That is Pillwein?
A: Yes.
Q: When you arrived at the block wherein the sea water experiments were being conducted, had the experiments begun?
A: Yes.
Q: What did you notice concerning the conditions in the experimental station during the course of these experiments?
A: That the people had to suffer from hunger and thirst.
Q: Do you know any of the particulars concerning the differentiation between the experimental groups?
A: As far as I can remember, experiments were carried out with sea water and Schaefer water.
Q: Do you know just what specific test the experimental subjects were put to?
A: No, I don't know that.
Q: Were those particulars made known to you or were they not available to you?
A: I was not convinced about that, and I didn't know what it was all about either.
Q: Did you know a Yugoslavian, a night nurse at the experimental station?
A: Yes.
Q: What happened to him?
A: He came into a penal company because he fell asleep and, therefore, the Gypsies had the opportunity to get water; and then he was put put in the penal company.
Q: What is a penal company, witness?
A: Well, that differs — they report to the outlying commandant. One was worse than the other.
Q: What reason was he sent to this penal company, was that because he fell asleep on duty at night?
A: Yes.
Q: Who sent him to the penal company, do you know?
A: That went through Beiglboeck.
Q: Well, now were the experimental subjects healthy throughout the experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: Did they become weakened at all?
A: Oh, yes, they did become weaker.
Q: Then, they were not healthy throughout the experiments?
A: Through the entire experiments, no, but at the beginning they were.
Q: Did any one of the subjects ever become violent?
A: I don't know.
Q: Well, did any of them ever have cramps and as a result lie on the floor in anguish?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you tell me about that more specifically, witness?
A: I entered the room and there was between two beds a patient, he was lying there, having a cramp attack, and I didn't know what was going on.
Q: What happened to that patient?
A: He helped himself, that is, in about a half hour, he went back to bed.
Q: Were the experimental subjects allowed to leave the room wherein they were kept during the experiment?
A: No, that was strictly forbidden.
Q: Was the room locked?
A: Yes.
Q: Did some one guard the room at all times?
A: Yes.
Q: Were not the experimental subjects allowed to go out into the courtyard next to the experimental block?
A: Only those of them who were not at that moment used in the experiments.
Q: Were they physically able, some of them, to go out in the yard, if allowed?
A: Yes.
Q: Witness, in the course of your duties in the experimental station, did you have to do manual labor or that is, wash floors and so forth?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you tell the Tribunal the incident when you spilled some water on the floor and had to mop it with a cloth?
A: Yes. On order of Pillwein I had to give seawater to the Gypsies. In part it was mixed with water and through my carelessness I spilled some water. I went to fetch a rag and I wiped it up, and when I had finished I forgot the rag. The Gypsies took this rag and sucked the water out of it. In the experiment that Beiglboeck conducted he got the idea that the patients had drunk some water, and by threats the Gypsies betrayed me or told that it was I, Beiglboeck came to me and asked me why this happened, I told him what had occurred and he threatened me, if that should ever happen again then I would be put in the experiments myself, would be experimented on myself.
Q: Were you sure that he was earnest in this threat?
A: Yes.
Q: Well, did you feel great danger because of the threat?
A: Certainly, that was a matter of course in a camp.
Q: Did Beiglboeck ever shout a curse at the experimental subject?
A: Frequently, even.
Q: And, he was extremely severe with them?
A: Not always, only sometimes.
Q: Did the experimental subjects ever ask for relief and want to quit the experiments?
A: No, they didn't try that, because they knew that it wouldn't do any good anyhow.
Q: Well, were these experimental subjects volunteers, witness?
A: As far as I know they were not.
Q: Well, did they ever volunteer for any special commando or some such thing?
A: Well, this is how it happened. Since I know the Slavic language, and there were some Czechoslovakians among them, I spoke with them and they told me that they came from Auschwitz concentration camp; they had been asked who wanted to volunteer for good outside assignments; some of them reported, and only when they came to Dachau did they find out what it was about.
Q: Did the experimental subjects indicate to you that they were happy to be experimented on?
A: No.
Q: Do you know the nationality of the various subjects?
A: For the most part I do.
Q: Can you tell the Tribunal the nationality of the various subjects, as near as you can recollect?
A: There were Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Austrians, and Germans.
Q: How do you know that these subjects were of those various nationalities?
A: Because I know the Czech language; therefore, I could speak to the Poles and the Czechs.
Q: Now, during the course of the experiments, that is in the experimental station, itself, did you ever see any one die as a result of the experiments?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether or not any one died while in the experimental station?
A: Only once the experiment lasted for three months. Once after the experiment I met a Gypsy and he told me about a comrade who had died. I did not ask him why he died.
Q: Just a moment, witness, I want to confine your testimony at this point to your knowledge of the conditions, and whether or not deaths occurred while the experiments were being conducted in the experimental station. We will get to the deaths in the hospital or in another section of the camp later. Now, during the course of the experiments are you aware of any deaths?
A: No.
Q: Were any of the experimental subjects severely ill, to your knowledge?
A: No.
Q: Can you tell us whether or not it would have been possible that some one could have died during the course of the experiments in the experimental station without your having known about it?
A: That, I can't tell.
Q: What happened to the experimental subjects at the completion of the experiments?
A: They were dismissed and. turned over to the working block.
Q: Did some of them go to the hospital?
A: I don't know anything about that.
Q: Well, were all 44 subjects dismissed at the same time or had some of them been dismissed intermittently throughout the experiments?
A: As far as I know all of them were dismissed at once, at the same time.
Q: Did you have the impression that some of the experimental subjects were ill and that they would not live much longer?
A: I did have that impression, yes; that these people would not live much longer.
Q: At the completion of the experiments did you, then, assume new duties?
A: I don't know.
Q: Did you, assume new duties, you, yourself?
A: No.
Q: Well, where did you go to work after the experiments were completed?
A: Then I became a patient in my block.
Q: Were you able to ascertain whether or not any of the inmates used in the experiments were in the hospital?
A: I don't know.
Q: Now, would you kindly tell the Tribunal about the conversation you had with the experimental subject named Franz, after the completion of the experiments?
A: About three months after the experiments I was already in another block; I met one of the patients and his name was Franz. We had a conversation and he told me during that conversation that one of his comrades had died already.
Q: Did he mean one of the persons used in the experiments?
A: Yes.
Q: All right.
A: I asked him whether he died as a result of the experiment or through hunger typhoid. I can't remember any more what his answer was to my question.
Q: Do you have any idea whether he tried to convey the thought to you that he died as a result of the experiments or whether he died because of the conditions in the camp; or can't you remember that specifically?
A: I can't remember any more.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I have just been informed by the Marshal that the witness Mettbach is not available for today and his presence cannot be procured this afternoon. Can you use the witness Haagen? Do you desire to call the witness Haagen?
MR. HARDY: The witness Haagen is being called by Dr. Tipp, but he cancelled calling the witness Haagen. The witness Haagen is going to be on the stand for two or three days, Your Honor. If Dr. Tipp can be located today we will call the witness Haagen, that is, if the cross examination of Vorlicek will not take up too much time this afternoon by Dr. Steinbauer.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say that Dr. Tipp had cancelled his application for the witness?
MR. HARDY: No, he had told the Marshal not to bring the witness up this afternoon, but to bring him up in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess, and during the recess we can ascertain what can be done.
(A recess was taken)