1947-06-20, #4: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find, their seats.

The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

EUGEN HAAGEN — Resumed
REDIRECT EXAMINATION — Continued

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Witness, the last document I should like to discuss with you is 3852, Exhibit 521. If possible I should first like to see the original. I would be grateful to the representative of the General Secretary if he would give me the original of this document, Exhibit 521, Document No. 3852.

Witness, you had this document before you this morning or a photostat of it which was submitted as the original. Can you tell us did you know this document before it was handed to you this morning?

A: Perhaps I might see the photostat again. I should like to add that in part the figures given here agree with my published report but the dates given here and other information which does not agree with my paper. If the other information about vaccination is correct I think I would have had no reason not to include this in my published work, but I should like to ask to have the original brought here. I don't know whether that is possible, or whether the authenticity can be ascertained in any other way.

Q: Witness, I asked you whether you knew the document before you saw it this morning. That's the first question we have to go into before we can go on.

A: After such a long time I can't remember exactly how the record was written but it contains so many unclear things, that I must say I don't know it in this form.

Q: Well, you know the handwriting of your assistant, witness. I believe Miss Crodell worked with you for years. Can you say anything about whether this document was written by Miss Crodell, whether you think that all of it was written by Miss Crodell, or whether perhaps she wrote part of it and did not write other parts?

A: That is difficult to say. In general the handwriting looks like Miss Crodell's but some parts look a little different.

I think that could only be decided by showing it to Miss Cordell herself.

Q: You are no doubt quite right, professor. The only person who can identify the document one hundred percent would be Miss Crodell, but we do not have her here. Therefore, I must unfortunately ask you do you consider that the entire document was written by Miss Crodell or do you believe that it was not entirely written by Miss Crodell?

A: Well, to judge by the dates in here and the testimony which I have given and what Hirz said about the vaccinations there is such disagreement that I must say the record could not have contained the data in this form.

Q: Then, I understand you to say, professor, that because of the handwriting and the contents you have considerable doubt that this document was written entirely by Miss Cordell?

A: Yes, I must say that because I knew nothing about vaccinations at this time.

MR. McHANNEY: If the Tribunal please, I must object to the formation of the questions being put to the witness. It is quite obvious that an attack is being made on the authenticity of this document. We have had several unfortunate incidents already in this trial in connection with the authenticity of various documents. Now, if this witness wishes to attack that document I will have to insist that questions be directed to him in such a manner that he identifies particularly those sections of the diary in which he says Miss Crodell did write and those sections she did not write. Now we have just got general questions so far about "Do you think some of them were not written by her" and we have no identification of the particular passages the witness is prepared to testify Miss Crodell did not write. I think getting a general statement of this sort from the witness is not apt to correct anything.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. The witness should identify the portions of the document which he says are in Miss Cordell's writing and these which he doubts are.

I would ask counsel for Prosecution where the original of this document is?

MR. McHANNEY: The document was obtained by Prosecution some five days ago from the French authorities in Strasbourg, particularly the investigating official who now have returned.

THE PRESIDENT: Prosecution simply procured a photostatic copy of the document, is that correct?

MR. MC HANNEY: No, your Honor, the original was brought to Nurnberg by the French authority in whose custody it was and who did not wish to surrender it to us. We had the original here, we had it photostatted and the official did not find it convenient to prolong his stay in Nurnberg and he has returned with the original.

THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may proceed.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, of course I shall ask the witness which parts he considers authentic and which not. First, I wanted to ask him whether he had any doubts at all.

Now, Professor, you have the photostat before you. It is regrettable that the original is not available. I do not believe we will be able to get along without the original. If there are doubts of the authenticity of a document, which is apparently the case here, it can be determined only with the aid of the original whether these doubts are justified or not. A comparison of the handwriting and of the material perhaps can be performed with the original, but not at all, or only with great difficulty, in a photostat. I should be very grateful to the Tribunal, therefore, for a ruling that the prosecution get the original from Strasbourg and submit it in evidence. If these doubts are cleared up, then the original can be removed from the files and replaced by a photostat, but in this case it seems to me absolutely necessary to submit the original in order to determine whether the entries are all in the same handwriting. This can be determined only from the original.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not yet seen the photostat. After the Tribunal has examined the photostat at the end of the examination, some ruling can be made.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: Witness, perhaps you can show some striking points where you have occasion to assume that Miss Crodell did not make the entry.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, are you limiting that question to the test of the document or to the format of the handwriting?

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I am afraid I can answer this question only after the witness has explained on what his doubts are based.

MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the witness has made it abundantly clear, and I think that the cross examination also made it clear, that there is a sharp contrast in the testimony of the witness and certain entries in the diary. Now, I think that if he is contesting the authenticity of the document, he must do so not on the basis of his recollection of events of which he has already testified to at great length, but on comparison of the handwriting.

He knows Miss Crodell's handwriting very well. She worked with him many years, and there is also a sample of Miss Crodell's writing on an independent document where he recognized her signature. Now, if he wishes to go through the document and say "The entry on such and such a page appears to me to be not the handwriting of Miss Crodell", very well, but I can't see anything is to be gained by his testifying to events now. He has already done that.

THE PRESIDENT: Submit the photostat to the Tribunal, now.

BY JUDGE SEBRING:

Q: Witness, are you familiar with the handwriting of Miss Crodell?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: Will you please examine this document NO-3852 and state whether or not it or any portion of it is in the handwriting of Miss Crodell and, if so, what portions are in her handwriting and what portions are not?

A: It looks as if this were Miss Crodell's handwriting, but the dates are not right. There's an entry of the 6th of July about the taking of blood at Schirmeck, 10 persons, page 3. This must be something about serological reaction. It seems to me that that date is much too late. Secondly, I am not aware that on the 4th of October, 1943, 20 people were inoculated.

DR. TIPP: Witness, the Judge asked you which entries you think are not in Miss Crodell's handwriting. You are not a handwriting expert and the Court cannot expect that.

JUDGE SEBRING: Yes, the Court can expect it if he knows, of his own knowledge, whose handwriting it is. Certainly, the Court can expect it. If he knows of his own knowledge that it is her handwriting, he can say so and he docs not have to be an expert to say so.

THE WITNESS: The handwriting looks like Miss Crodell's.

DR. TIPP: Then I must formulate the question as follows, witness —

THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Then, counsel, the witness states that, in his opinion, the documents are all in Miss Crodell's handwriting, The only question which the Tribunal and the witness are concerned with is whether or not there are errors in the writing. That is an entirely different question. The witness may, of course, state that, in his opinion, there are errors in what was written, but from what the witness said, I understand we start from the proposition that the entries are in the handwriting of Miss Crodell.

BY DR. TIPP:

Q: That is what I understood the witness to say too, Mr. President.

Witness, am I understand that from the handwriting which you have before you you can determine that some parts were written by Miss Crodell and other parts were not? Please testify clearly about the handwriting alone?

A: The handwriting is that of Miss Crodell.

Q: Well then, the question of the Tribunal is cleared up.

Now, there comes another question which the President just asked. From which entries do you believe that Miss Crodell was mistaken? That's another question.

A: The first entry which I think is wrong is the 6th of July.

Drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons.

The vaccinations were performed in May, as the witness Hirz has confirmed, and the serological examinations were undertaken four weeks after the vaccinations, It seems to me that this date is a little late. The only explanation I can think of is that Miss Crodell entered it late and made this mistake.

On the 27th of January 1943:

20 persons were vaccinated with one cc each.

That cannot be a vaccination in Schirmeck. It is so ambiguous here that I can't tell what kind of vaccine it's supposed to be. It says nothing about animal experiments as it does above in April and May where the mice controls are entered. That's one thing.

Then, 27th of January 1944 — once it says 1943, and then again it says 1944. We did not vaccinate anybody in Schirmeck.

As I remember, the figures may be right, but then there is another discrepancy, 14 October, apparently 1943, where 10 persons were inoculated three times with one cc.

Those are the parts which I cannot testify to.

Then there is another entry, 25 May 1944. I can't understand what "S" means and what "M" means. Miss Crodell certainly would not have used these abbreviations because nobody would have understood them later—

Q: — Then if I understand you correctly, witness, those are the points where you believe that this record could be mistaken?

A: Yes, it contains mistakes which I cannot explain.

Q: If I have understood you correctly, the first point was two entries which you compared, one 27 January 1943 and one of 27 January 1944. I shall quote:

27 January 1943 (9 months) mixed with the same amount as 21 May distilled water per tube, 20 persons 1 cc each.

The entry of 27 January 1944:

(8months) mixed with the same amount as of 21 May 2 cc distilled water per Tube, inoculated 20 persons with 1 cc, each.

The two entries agree, is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Then, if those two entries are correct that means that you performed the same inoculation on the same number of persons twice exactly one year apart?

A: Yes, that's what it looks like.

Q: Is that possible, witness?

A: No, that is quite impossible. On the 27 January 1943 it says "9 months". We didn't carry out any vaccinations at all. We didn't have any vaccine. On the 27th of January 1944, which is much later, it says "8 months".

Q: Then, you say these two entries show that the entry is not correct as far as the contents are concerned?

A: Yes, it is wrong. I can't say what the mistake is, but there is certainly a big mistake here.

Q: Now, witness, the entry of 6 July:

Drawings of blood, Schirmeck 10 persons—

that's the fourth entry on page 3. I quote:

6 July, Drawings of blood Schirmeck, 10 persons (3 had fever)

and then follow 3 figures which are apparently titer values. Then it goes on:

the other two were not here anymore.

Then comes the average titer. Witness, can you tell me why your assistant writes:

Drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons

and then she gives the titer values of 3 and writes:

two are not here any more

? The Prosecutor concluded that the two persons were not there. Do you believe that this interpretation of the prosecutor is correct, or do you see some other possibility of explaining this entry since it speaks of the

taking of blood from 10 persons

?

A: I have already said that it says here

two were not here any more.

It probably means the two persons were not in the camp. There might be the suspicion that they had died. I spoke of that under direct examination. He certainly would have made a notation that two had died. The two who died, died two days after the vaccination according to Hirz.

Q: Now, witness, something else. We must assume that blood was taken from:

ten persons, three had fever

as Miss Crodell writes. Then, it gives three titer values and says

the other two were not here.

In my opinion, this does not mean that two persons were gone because it would not have mentioned the taking of blood from 10 persons, but that some material was missing. I don't know whether my interpretation is correct. It is just a matter of interpreting the document.

MR. Mc HANEY: If the Tribunal please, I object to the question and I ask that the witness be directed not to answer it. I think Dr. Tipp realizes full well that he has gone clear beyond the permissible bounds of examination of his own witness. He has been leading him around by the nose with this document for about five or ten minutes.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I do not believe I am leading the witness around by the nose or that I have overstepped the bounds of permissible examination. I am trying to interpret the document which is my right when a document is submitted. I am asking the witness what his opinion is on these various points.

THE PRESIDENT: The witness should be the one to interpret the document, not the counsel. The question is objected to, but you can ask the witness to explain the document.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, may I ask — is the witness to answer this question which I asked?

THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) The objection to that question is sustained. It is leading and suggesting.

Q: Very well, Witness, the titer values of eight persons are listed here, probably you remember these are titer values of the persons given in your paper?

A: Yes. I recognize them.

Q: So that the taking of blood of ten persons refers to your vaccinations?

A: Yes.

Q: Now witness if I remember correctly, you told us on your direct examination that you vaccinated only eight persons in this group?

A: We vaccinated 28 of the persons altogether in Schirmeck. One group was eight persons. They were taken of — by Antloff.

Then there was a group of 20 persons who were vaccinated and who were taken care of by pharmacist Hirz. Antloff does not say who in this group of 8 persons died. Hirz says in the group of 20 which he took care of, two are supposed to have died on the second day after the vaccination. The eight persons were vaccinated when Antloff was the nurse.

Q: Then you believe, Witness, that these

two who were not there anymore

— we do know whether it was people or material or what, — cannot refer to the second group of 20 persons, but only to the first group of 8 persons. Is that right?

A: Yes. That is right.

MR. McHANEY: I object to the question as being leading and suggestive.

THE PRESIDENT: The general rule for determining whether or not a question is leading is whether it can be answered with the words "yes" or "no". If it can't it is a leading question. On some matters, you may direct the witnesses attention to the portion of the document and ask what it means, and the witness will explain the meaning of the document.

DR. TIPP: I did not think I was asking a question. I thought I was merely summing up what the witness had just said.

THE PRESIDENT: That is objectionable, too.

Q: Witness, we will go on to the next entry, 4 October 1943. It says:

Inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, 0.5 per person.

I cannot understand this entry, as it stands. As a scientist, can you explain to us what this means?

A: In this entry of 4 October 1943, there is no detailed information. It merely says 0.5 per person. I cannot understand that entry. If it were correct, it would say, "0.5 cc" and then it would say what it was. It just says 0.5.

Q: Then comes the entry of 27 January 1943. Witness, you have the photostat before you. I do not. Is this entry directly under the 4th of October 1943 in the photostat?

A: Yes, directly under it.

Q: Witness, can you imagine why Miss Crodell first describes something supposed to have taken place on the 1st of October 1943, and suddenly she jumps back to the 27th of January 1943?

A: No; I cannot say. And the entry does not show what it was about.

Q: As far as I know myself, Miss Crodell worked for you for a long time?

A: Yes.

Q: Was she such a sloppy worker as this document seems to indicate that she made these entries at random? That is the conclusion we would have to draw.

No. Miss Crodell was very careful. She was making entries in the record by the date. She cannot enter an entirely different date later. That seems impossible. Besides there is no indication what this about. It just says 27 January 1943, nine months, mixed with the same amount as 21 May, distilled water per tube, 20 persons, 1 cc each. That is an unusual way to keep a record. It should say what vaccine it is and so forth.

Q: This 27 January 1943, mixed with the same amount as 21 May, that is on Page 3. In my copy there is an entry 21 May 1943 on Page 5.

A: I cannot find the page.

Q: Witness, we were just talking about Page 3. There is an entry of 27 January 1943.

A: Yes. Yes, I have that.

Q: It reads:

Mixed with the same amount as 21 May.

A: Yes. I have that.

Q: And on Page 5, you will find an entry of 21 Nay 1943.

A: Yes. I see it.

Q: But before that, I do not see any entry of 21 May 1943. It is remarkable that on the 27th of January 194?, the witness already knew that amount was going to be used on the 21st of May 1943. There is a great discrepancy here. If I look at Page 4, there is an entry from 1943 again. I believe, Witness, we could find quite a number of such discrepancies in the document.

I don't know if the Tribunal is interested in them. To me, however, the points which I have just been discussing, especially the last one, that on the 27th of January 1943, referring to the 21st of Hay 1943, seems to be enough to prove that the document in this form is not fully valid evidence.

MR. McHANEY: I will ask that the last remarks of the defense counsel be stricken from the record as being argumentative, and should be reserved for his final argument.

DR. TIPP: Since we are dealing with the probative value of a document, we can decide it only by means of arguments. I have made factual statements, and I think I can afford to present the conclusions.

THE PRESIDENT: It is not the proper time for argument, but counsel may proceed.

Q: Witness, let us examine the document more closely. Let us look at Page 4. First of all, there is an entry of 14 May 1943. A capital "S", then three plus marks, 11 persons, 11 Tubes. Witness, can you explain this entry?

A: It is 11 passages, not 11 persons. That is the number of passages. And as to the 75, 1 to 10 diluted; that is the dilution of the yolk sack. Then it was dried and put into 11 tubes.

Q: That must be a laboratory entry, Witness?

A: Yes. It is a laboratory entry.

Q: Then it goes on, 10 October, five months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck, 7 with 0.5 cc each.

A: No. I think that says twice with 0.5 cc each, on the 10th of October, apparently 1943.

Q: Now witness, can you explain something to me on Page 4?

The first entry says 14 May 1943. Then comes 10 October apparently also 1943, for a year is not given, then comes 27 January 1944.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the discrepancy between the English translation and the German translation apparently—

DR. TIPP: I only have the German text.

MR. McHANEY: IF the Tribunal please, under Page the old Page 5 of the English Translation, the entry which reads, "27 January, 1944," appears on the original copy as 27 January 1943. I thought I would call that to your attention earlier in the day. That is what the witness has been testifying to as a discrepancy of one year.

THE PRESIDENT: That is to what I had reference. I mistook the entry.

MR. McHANEY: The entry under Page 6 is correct, "27 January."

Q: Perhaps the witness can help us. Professor, was the entry on page 3, 27 January 1943?

A: Yes.

Q: And on page four there is another entry.

A: 27 January 1944.

Q: Those are two entries which have the same wording.

A: Except for the figures in parenthesis — they are not the same. 27 January 1943, that figure was apparently changed in the photostat.

Q: Well, let's go on, witness. On page 3, the last entry, 27 January 1944; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: On page 5, the first entry is 21 Hay 1943; is that right?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, witness, can you toll me why Miss Crodell, who according to the Prosecution is supposed to have kept this record, mixes the dates up so. It is not customary, is it, in scientific records to juggle the dates around like that. Maybe it was customary in Strasbourg, but that is not by experience.

A: Well, if the pages agree with the dates, then this cannot be a regular record such as is kept in a laboratory.

Q: Thank you, witness. I don't believe the rest of the entries are of any particular importance as far as the probative value of the document is concerned. I come to page 8; I believe it is the entry of the 25th of May, 1943. Do you have that entry, witness?

A: Yes, 23 May 1943.

Q: In my copy it reads, together with capital "S", inoculated five tubes of M-1 at Natzweiler, two ampules distilled water, three to four cc 0.5 cc. I do not understand these entries, witness. Perhaps you can help us. Tell us what it means about together with "S". Is there anything noticeable about this "S" you have to state, or might it be some other letter. I would like to know what you have to say about this.

A: If that were a real entry in a record, it would have to be so that one could understand the "S". I can't imagine what this "S" means, and I don't know what "M-1" means either. Those are things which are not written like that in a record.

Q: Are those scientific abbreviations, witness, which are used in typhus research, or what else might it be?

A: If so, I would understand it; and I don't.

Q: You can't explain it?

A: No, I can't.

Q: (reading)

The inoculation took place during the incubation (in a transport containing also sick people).

You have already said, Professor, that Miss Crodell worked with you for years and was very reliable. Can you imagine that Miss Crodell would make such an entry, especially the words — "during the incubation". What does that mean?

A: Well, that would mean that we know that the people were infected with typhus; and during the incubation period, that is the period between the infection and the outbreak of the disease, they were vaccinated; but it says in parenthesis it was in a transport including sick people.

Q: That means that in the transport, which was vaccinated, there were some sick people. As far as I know, incubation period means the period between the infection and the open outbreak of the disease; is that right?

A: Yes, that is right.

Q: Now, when people in a transport are sick, when it is learned later that there are sick people in the transport, can one speak of an incubation period. Can you know what the incubation period is when the people were sick?

A: Then we would have to know exactly when these people were bitten by an infected louse.

Q: In other words, you could not know that.

A: How were we to know that?

Q: Then, it can't be recorded here that the vaccinations were performed during the incubation period.

A: No, of course not.

Q: Then again, witness, if I understood you correctly, you mean that this record could not have been made by a scientifically trained assistant.

A: No, we didn't have the material for that.

Q: Then, if we assume hypothetically that this entry is correct assuming that you really knew that the people were infected with typhus, assuming that you knew they were vaccinated during the incubation period —1 go on — thirteen became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died; after four weeks the others had the following titer. Assume that this entry is true. Can it be determined whether the people died, the people who were already in the incubation period, whether they died from the vaccinations or from the real typhus which they had already contracted previously. Can one see that here?

A: Thirteen became sick in the period 29 May to 9 June. This does not show clearly when the incubation period was. We would have to consider the incubation period here. It is only stated that the first apparently became sick on the 29 of May, and the vaccinations were on the 25th of May, 1944. It is also said that these people wore already in the incubation period. Even assuming it as a hypothetical answer, merely assuming that we vaccinated in the incubation period, it cannot be determined whether it was a spontaneous case of the disease or whether it was an infection after the vaccination.

Q: And can you see from this record, Professor, whether these alleged deaths was the result of the disease or the result of the vaccination?

A: No, that is not clear. No date is given; I can't find any date as to when they died.

Q: Note the last sentence, Professor:

After four weeks the other eleven had titer

What does the photostat say?

A: It looks to me like the other 17, after four weeks, had titer 9 or G, I don't know what that is, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Nine. That means a total who had titer: three, 1:100; one, 1:200; one, 4:100. That makes four. Three, —. I can't read that, but it must be less than a thousand.

Q: Professor, perhaps I can help you with the copy. The copy I have reads as follows:

The other 11, after four weeks, had the following titer: Nine had no titer. Three had a titer of 1:100.

That makes twelve.

One had a titer of 1:200.

That makes thirteen.

One, 1:400.

That makes fourteen.

Two, 1:800.

That makes sixteen. That means, of the remaining 11, 16 had the following titer.

A: I don't agree with you on the figures. I read, that as 17. And as to the last one, I would say that was 3. That would make 17 altogether. However, the important thing is very low titer, which indicates neither a real typhus injection nor a vaccination with a living vaccine.

Q: Then you say the formulation in the titer values does not agree with your scientific experience and your knowledge of the personality of Miss Crodell? Is that correct?

A: Yes, that is correct. This record is in such a form that it would not conform with laboratory experiments. If we have typhus patients and the agglutination titer is calculated, the values are much, much higher. Everyone who has ever worked with typhus know that, everyone who knows titer values.

However, if of 17 persons nine — even if some had been vaccinated — had no titer and the other eight had an average titer of one to one nine four, that is very unlikely, to say the least.

Q: Witness, you say that on the 25th of May, 1944, you did not perform any vaccinations at Natzweiler. Is that right?

A: Yes, that is right.

Q: Second, you say the entry itself shows that this is not correct, that it was not made by an export.

A: Yes. that is right.

Q: Now, witness, this morning Mr. McHaney put another entry to you from this document which refers to a Mr. Meyer. This part of the document is not in the Gorman copy; I don't know whether the Tribunal has it, I believe not.

Would you please tell us, witness, in what connection is the name "Meyer" mentioned in this document?

A: After the name Meyer I read "Oekonom" [Economist]; that would be an administrative official. Mr. Meyer was an administrative official in the Medical Testing Institution, and I said, that he had no connection with our scientific work. The prosecutor showed me the document and had me confirm that it was addressed to Mr. Meyer, but he did not give me an opportunity to make any explanation. This is a list of serological tests of the blood of sick persons which was sent to us. This was the test of the Medical Testing Institution. According to the epidemic laws, such tests had to be made by the Testing Institution and registered, because reports were sent to the health officers about contagious diseases.

We had to make those serological tests of the typhus cases, and then on this list we gave the figures, and a list of results was also sent down. Then later we got back the money for the Medical Testing Institution.

This is a financial matter and not a scientific experiment in any sense, as the prosecutor no doubt assumed. He meant to indicate that I was in contact with Mr. Meyer in that connection.

Q: Well, Professor, if I understand you correctly you say that you told Mr. Meyer the number of tests made. He was the administrator who was in charge of the money and he was to collect the money; is that right?

A: Yes? Mr. Meyer was in charge of the office of the Medical Testing Institution. He registered all the tests and he obtained the necessary funds.

Q: Now, witness, by way of precaution, another question. You said that neither in October 1943 in Schirmeck nor in Hay 1944 in Schirmeck did you carry out vaccinations. Now, this morning the prosecutor spoke to you about this ominous "S" in the entry of the 25th of Hay 1944. and drew the conclusion that this "S" meant Schroeder. Now tell me, witness, when Schroeder visited Strasbourg did he go to Natzweiler with you?

A: No, he did not go to Natzweiler with me; he was in Strasbourg only a few hours. As far as I can recall, he arrived about noon and left in the evening. I believe the train for Karlsruhe left at 7:19. I often used the same train. First of all, he ate lunch; second, he visited my institute; third, he visited the surgical clinic; fourth, he inspected the general installations of the hospital; fifth, he ate supper with me. Therefore, there was no time at all to go out to Natzweiler. If we deduct the meal times, he had about three or four hours, which he spent inspecting the institute and the clinic, and so forth. He also visited the ear clinic, I forgot that before, I was present myself.

Q: Now be careful, witness. You said this morning to the prosecutor that it was about the 25th. Professor Schroeder happens to know where he was on the 25th of May? It was at some birthday party. Perhaps I will submit an affidavit on that subject later.

Can you remember that it was on the 25th, or night it have been on the 26th or the 27th that Schroeder visited you?

A: It might have been the 24th, 25th, 26th, or 27th, I don't know. In any case, it was the end of May. It might have been on the 25th, I don't know.

Q: Now, Professor, my final question. Yesterday in your direct examination you said that you submitted two papers for publication. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Now, can you turn to document book 12, document NO-128? It is a letter headed:

Medical Academy of the Luftwaffe, Instruction Group, Science and Research, 7 July 1944, page 95.

Subject: "Approval of the memorandum of Oberstabsarzt [Chief Medical Officer] Professor Dr. Haagen and B. Crodell: Experiments with a new dried typhus vaccine, second report."

That is at page 95 in the English, 97 in the German. I repeat. Subject:

Approval of the memorandum of Oberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Haagen and B. Crodell: Experiments with a new dried typhus vaccine, second report.

Is it correct, Professor, if I assume that this second report was the last one?

A: Yes.

Q: The work approved on the 7th of July, 1944. We don't have that, but from document NO-123 we can see when you sent the paper in. That is your letter to the SS Main Office through Dr. Hirt on 9 May 1944, page 88:

I enclose herewith a carbon copy of a paper on our experiments with typhus vaccine. The paper was sent as a manuscript to the Chief of the Luftwaffe Medical Service with the request for permission to publish it.

Professor, the paper mentioned in the document of 9 May 1944, is that the second report mentioned in the document of the 7th of July?

A: Yes.

Q: Then, on the 9th of May, 1944, you had only finished this report. This paper was sent as a final report to the Medical Inspectorate. This could not have included the vaccinations of the 25th of May 1944 recorded in this report here, not even if they had been performed. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Did you ever send reports to the Medical Inspectorate or report in any way about deaths?

A: No; I was not able to report any deaths, because there were no deaths.

DR. TIPP: Thank you. No further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel any questions to propound to this witness?

BY DR. FRITZ (For Defendant Rose):

Q: Professor, I have only one question in connection with the question put to you this morning by the Prosecutor. Is it not correct that in the case of living vaccine the question has often been discussed whether the non-pathogenic germs can become virulent again? I may remind you of a discussion which took place on the occasion of the Luebeck disaster, the tuberculosis vaccinations.

A: This question can be answered with several examples. For example, variola vaccine virus. For 150 years ago it was adapted to the calf and never changed again to become pathogenic to human beings and produce true smallpox, a second example is hydrophobia, a living vaccine obtained from rabbits is used. I am not aware of any person contracting hydrophobia from vaccination. A third example is the yellow fever vaccine which is produced by various procedures and has no doubt been used in millions of vaccinations. It has not been observed that it has reverted and became pathogenic to human beings, and as far as we have any experience with living, attenuated typhus vaccine from literature, I am thinking of the experiments, or rather vaccinations of Blanc, one cannot speak of any mutation. As a scientist, to be quite honest, I have nothing to conceal. I admit that our experience is not great enough yet. One must have millions of vaccinations before one can take the responsibility for this decision. To explain, a decision of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, I believe it was in 1934, was discussed a great deal in Germany at the time whether compulsory vaccination would be abolished or whether a different type of vaccination should be introduced, that is, tissue culture vaccine. The Ministry was of the point of view we know the old vaccine. It has been used in billions of cases, but we do not yet know, even though many vaccinations have been performed what may develop from this vaccine. That is, I think, against either myself or any other scientists.

I say quite openly that we are here quite openly at the limit of our knowledge.

Q: From your answer I conclude, Professor, that you concede that it is not absurd for an expert to discuss the possibility of a germ becoming pathogenic for human beings again.

A: Yes, that can be discussed, of course. In practice I know nothing positive about it.

DR. FRITZ: No further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there questions by any other defense counsel? Apparently there are none.

RE-CROSS EXAMINATION

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Professor, a hypothetical question.

If one inoculates two persons of similar physical ability and health, one with 1/2 cc. of vaccine, by inter-muscular or intravenous injection and the other by 1/2 cc by scarification, in which person would you expect there to be the more serious reaction to the vaccination?

A: You said if one vaccinated two people, and I didn't quite understand with vaccine? Would you mind repeating what you said? Intramuscularly and intravenously, you said. And a third person —

Q: Let's start again, Professor. We have two persons. We vaccinate one with 1/2 cc of typhus vaccine and just for simplicity we will make it your typhus vaccine, by injection. The other person we vaccinate with the same vaccine and the same quantity, namely, 1/2 cc by scarification. In which of these two persons would you expect the stronger reaction?

A: If we inject 1/2 cc. of the vaccine intramuscularly, we know exactly the amount which has been introduced, but if as you say, Mr. Prosecutor, we introduce 1/2 cc. by scarification, I must tell you that that is not a quantitative vaccination. Only very small quantities of the vaccine are used in scarification. It is a superficial method.

It doesn't even bleed. It is in the epidermis, and 1/2 cc. can't be introduced that way.

Q: Then you can't answer my hypothetical question?

A: If you insist on 1/2 cc. I cannot answer the question.

Q: Let's change the quantity to one which you could introduce by scarification.

A: If we vaccinate by scarification we can expect that the effect of the vaccination will be the same as if we inject subcutaneously or intramuscularly.

Q: In other words, the method of applying the vaccine would have no effect on the reaction of the person vaccination.

A: It is again a hypothetical answer. You asked a hypothetical question. It can be assumed that the reactions will be the same.

Q: I understood your testimony on direct examination yesterday that in your group of 40 test persons in Natzweiler, the first and second vaccination; is that correct?

A: That the scarification vaccination was reaction after intramuscular injection? Did I understand you?

Q: No, Now I am asking you about the quantity of vaccine, and I understood your testimony to be that you gave them a larger quantity of your vaccine in the first two vaccinations by injection than you gave them on the last vaccination by scarification; am I correct?

A: Yes, that's right.

Q: This was the same vaccine used for the three vaccinations?

A: It was the same vaccine for the three vaccinations; yes.

Q: It is very clear. Thank you. Now I will pass up again Document NO 3852, Prosecution Exhibit 521 for identification.

DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I object to the use of this document. This morning Mr. McHaney concluded his cross examination. I believe in re-examination he can only go into questions developing out of the redirect examination. I don't believe he can bring up new questions and new documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Just what document is this? I understand this has been under considerable discussion all afternoon.

DR. TIPP: I beg your pardon. I misunderstood the number.

THE PRESIDENT: Am I correct, counsel?

MR. McHANEY: Yes. This is the notebook on the —

THE PRESIDENT: We have taken considerable time on that.

MR. HC HANEY: Yes. I am about to conclude right now.

BY MR. McHANEY:

Q: Will you turn to page 3? Do you find the entry for 14 May?

A: 14-5.

Q: 14 May, yes.

A: The second entry, yes.

Q: And you see in parenthesis two weeks?

A: Yes.

Q: That means the period of time this vaccine had been stored, namely, dating from 30 April 1943, doesn't it?

A: Yes. I can assume that.

Q: And for 26 May four weeks means that it is four weeks it has been stored, is that correct?

A: That must be right, according to the dates.

Q: And for October 43, parenthesis six months, that is six months dating from roughly the first of May, isn't it?

A: That's right. It says six months, yes.

Q: If you drop down to the next entry which reads 27 January 1943, parentheses 9 months, that is nine months dated from the first of May 1943, isn't it, Professor?

A: That's right, yes.

Q: So that indicates quite clearly that Miss Crodell had that same failing which most of us do have and carried over the date of the old year during the first month of the new year, isn't that right, professor?

A: Yes, but afterwards there is an entry, 27 January, 1944, and it says 9 and 8 months. That's right.

Q: But she did make a mistake at that time, isn't that correct, doctor?

A: I don't know. I can't see that from the document. There are so many inaccuracies in here that I can't be definite about anything in this document.

MR. McHANEY: No further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Now that we have referred to that document again, there are apparently differences between the English and the German. Under the entry on page 4, 14 May 1943 there is an omission indicated by a question mark in the English, while there are the figures 7.5 in the German. And in the last paragraph of the document which has been under discussion it seems that there are some words in the German which have no equivalent in the English. I might be wrong about that, as I am not familiar with German, but I wish those translations to be checked and the English and German compared.

MR. McHANEY: We shall do that.

THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination of this witness?

The witness is excused from the stand.

The Tribunal will now be in recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow Saturday morning.

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is now in recess until 0930 o'clock tomorrow morning.