Is this the letter you meant, Witness, when you said that you were given approval in principle to carry out these vaccinations?

A. Yes, this letter created the basic prerequisities for performing the vaccinations. If we disregard the fact that for epidemiological reasons the vaccinations were justified and even necessary, this letter, I believe, gives us a justification to perform them.

Q. Now, were you able to carry out the vaccinations?

A. No. It wasn’t as simple as that unfortunately—I say “unfortunately” because precious time was lost and I was interested in protecting the camp as soon as possible, at least insofar as there was no longer any danger of typhus. I informed the camp doctor of the contents of this letter and asked to be allowed to commence the vaccinations. A considerable time passed, however, and not until November did I receive notice that we could begin with the vaccinations. The whole affair had not been helped by Hirt’s intervention, therefore, but had even been delayed. Then when I received the first hundred prisoners, I looked at them and found that they were in no condition at all to be vaccinated. They were in very poor shape. I must say that they were prisoners who came from Auschwitz on the transport; I think eighteen of the people had already died. One really had no right to perform a vaccination on such a group. I did not do so and refused for medical reasons.

Q. And what did you do then, Witness?

A. I informed Hirt of this. I wrote to him frankly that these people were out of the question for vaccination and I asked for men in good physical condition.

Q. Professor, will you please look at Document NO-121, Prosecution Exhibit 293? It is a letter from you to Professor Hirt, dated 15 [13] November 1943. Did you mean this letter when you say that you wrote to Hirt? I shall read briefly:

Is this the letter?

A. Yes. This is the letter of 13 November 1943. I may point out in this letter that I asked for a hundred prisoners in good physical condition. Only in this way could I expect results which could be used for purposes of comparison.

Q. Professor, I have something to put to you from this document which is perhaps a contradiction—or which may be interpreted as a contradiction—of your testimony. You say that you wanted to vaccinate these people and the first sentence of the document seems to indicate that. You write, “their suitability for the typhus vaccinations.” Further down, however, in the document you speak of testing a new vaccine. Again, further down, “material which can be compared.” One might conclude that these are not vaccinations but experiments. Is this not in contradiction of your testimony?

A. No. That is not in contradiction of my statements. It is apparently necessary for me to supplement my statements by saying the following: as I said, in the Natzweiler camp I wanted to vaccinate a fairly large number of prisoners. The vaccine was ready as far as the laboratory was concerned; it had been tested in animal experiments; it had been tested in self-experiments, and on a small group of volunteers. I, therefore, knew that it no longer involved any danger for the persons vaccinated and that the use of this living vaccine did not bring about any manifest disease. But when a new vaccine is used for the first time in practice it is to a certain degree an experiment, since the tolerance still has to be determined and that can only be determined on a large number of people. The dose still has to be determined and the result of the vaccination still has to be checked on a large number of people. So I admit it is no doubt true that the use of a new vaccine for the first time in practice on a large number of people could still be considered an experiment. I should like to add that in the first large-scale application the titer values and blood were examined. Of course, temperature was taken and all other observations were carefully made in order to get a definite final impression of the effectiveness and tolerance of the vaccine. We had to do this; it was our duty. It was a big responsibility to introduce a new vaccine like this, even if one had already gained experience in a small experiment on oneself and volunteers. But in this trial the word, “experiment,” has been grossly misused. In this sense our vaccinations were not “experiments”, they were tests and not experiments with any uncertain goal or purpose. One can hardly speak of criminal experiments here. And in every medical journal in the world, on almost every page, we find experiments at the sick bed, and I don’t think anyone has any objection to this word. And as far as human experiments are concerned, I should like to refer to advertisements which show the public attitude of an American firm—in picture magazines which I have seen myself. Antiseptics such as Listerine, where they speak of human beings on whom tests have been made, who were used as guinea pigs. For this reason alone I think the word; “experiment”, is used in different senses.

Q. One term has not yet been cleared in this document, the last words, “comparable material.” Can you please explain what that means? What did you mean by “comparable material”?

A. That means that the investigations indicated had already been made and that the results were to be compared with one another, so that one could have really useful results. The individual values of every immunologist vary considerably according to the constitution and general physical condition. That was one of the reasons why I was very careful to obtain only those persons in good physical condition for vaccination, since persons in a poor condition react quite differently. Besides, I must point out that according to the general vaccination regulations, vaccinations of any type can only be performed on healthy people, and I wanted to observe this rule strictly.

Dr. Tipp: Now, Witness, I turn to the next document, NO-122, Prosecution Exhibit 298. It is a letter from Rose to you dated 13 December 1943. In this letter the frequently mentioned Copenhagen vaccine is again mentioned. Herr Rose writes here that the testing of many vaccines simultaneously gives a clearer picture of better or worse results of a method than the testing of one vaccine alone. Furthermore, there is mention of the experiments in Buchenwald. Let me ask you first of all, Professor, when you received this letter in December 1943, what did you know about these Buchenwald experiments?

Witness Haagen: I only heard the details about these Buchenwald experiments from the documents in this trial. Moreover, Dr. Ding’s report at the consulting conference in 1943 must be mentioned. I heard of Professor Rose’s protest against these human experiments at that time.

Q. You had no connection then with these Ding experiments?

A. I never worked with Ding and knew of his work only from the report at this consulting conference.

Q. The prosecution has deduced regarding these Buchenwald experiments that the efficacy of the vaccine was tested by subsequent infection with pathogenic virus. Will you please say what you have to about that?

A. This attitude on the part of the prosecution ignores the fact, as I said several times, that I never had a strain of virus which is pathogenic to human beings, consequently, I could not carry out an infection such as the prosecution seems to assume. I never thought of carrying out such subsequent infection with a virus pathogenic to human beings, because I was working as a scientist with my own material, and wasn’t testing mixture for other vaccines at all.

As I have already said, on the occasion of Aherinesliev, I vaccinated some of the inmates there, with an attenuated virus in order to minimize the reactions to the vaccine. I thought that in the next vaccination I would carry out these primary vaccinations with dead vaccine and I wanted to use such a vaccine that used a dead virus. In the meantime, between Schirmeck vaccines and the new vaccinations in Natzweiler, I had carried my work to the point where I no longer needed a dead vaccine. But the previous history was this: Professor Rose, by sending me this Copenhagen vaccine, thought he was supporting and helping me. And he suggested that I include this dead vaccine in my series of vaccines. Let me say regarding this Copenhagen vaccine that it was a liver vaccine which is said to be much more effective than the other dead vaccines, particularly more so than the lung vaccine; and from it, in dead form, a better protection could be expected. Now, it was my point of view that if we distributed it over 100 persons again and did not get other persons, there would not be enough vaccinations to be of value for comparisons. So, I didn’t see any reason for introducing the Copenhagen vaccine. I told this to Professor Rose and Professor Rose answered in the form we have seen in the letter which constitutes this document. This would have given some basis for comparison between the two vaccines. However, I didn’t use it because I was no longer interested in it since, in the meantime, we had succeeded somewhat in attenuating our own virus so that we could do without it. I heard no more from Professor Rose about this vaccine and never received the Copenhagen vaccine.

Q. Then you say, Professor, that this was a dead vaccine, namely the Copenhagen vaccine, and there was also your own dead vaccine which was to be used for a preliminary vaccination to reduce the reaction to the live vaccine. However, this plan although originally intended, was never carried out?

A. Yes. That is so.

Q. Now, Professor, we were talking about your letter to Professor Hirt of 15 [13] November 1943, in which you ask him to make other prisoners available. Was this request met later and were you able to carry out vaccinations in Natzweiler later with your new vaccine?

A. Yes. I received the persons I had requested, and in December of 1943 and January of 1944 we were able to carry out these vaccinations. I performed them in two groups of 40 persons each with my live attenuated virus which is no longer pathogenic to human beings, and this I want to state explicitly.

Q. Professor, please describe these vaccinations briefly to the Tribunal.

A. First, a group of 40 persons was vaccinated. The first vaccination was done with one cc. intramuscularly. One was a vaccine made of murine typhus virus vaccine. In no case did local reactions of temperature or other symptoms occur. The second vaccination took place a week later. This was again one cc. of vaccine introduced intramuscularly. This was no longer pathogenic to human beings. To complete the story I have to say that between the Schirmeck vaccinations in May and these vaccinations, I had turned to the production of a louse typhus vaccine; this vaccine contained live virus. Before it was used in Natzweiler as a vaccine, we tested it on ourselves, that is, with some collaborators, to ascertain the tolerability and effects. We were roughly ten persons, members of the institute and also students. Only then did we use the vaccine on the prisoners in Natzweiler. Four weeks after the last vaccination there were the usual serological examinations. The Weil-Felix reaction was used. The average titer value, let me say, was better than in the vaccinations with the rat virus. It was, namely 2,000. I need not go into these details. The general reactions were normal reactions to inoculation, temperature, and headaches; but there were no manifestations of actual typhus as a result of inoculations.

Q. You are speaking of a first group, so I assume there must have been a second group. How did you carry out the vaccination of the second group?

A. It occurred to me that instead of injecting the vaccine, the vaccination could be performed by scarifying the skin in the same way as you scrape the skin to make a smallpox vaccination. Therefore, as with the first group, with the same living virus vaccine, I vaccinated 40 additional persons with scarification of the skin. Let me point out that the experiments on myself and on my assistants were carried out in the same way, with scarification of the skin. The reactions were comparatively mild, corresponding roughly to the reactions to vascular typhus vaccine, so that we had no misgivings about undertaking this kind of vaccination.

Q. You described the reactions of yourself and the volunteers as very slight. Now, the reactions of the prisoners were stronger, were they not?

A. Yes. They were stronger again. And this we can only explain by believing that the general state of health among the prisoners was lower than among my associates; but there was no such thing as a natural manifestation of typhus or any fatalities.

Q. But, Professor, to this statement I shall have to put to you something which was said before this Tribunal and which is quite different from what you have just said. I am referring to the testimony of the witness, Edith Schmidt. On 9 January 1947 (Tr. p. 1371), she said that you had carried out vaccination experiments on 100 to 150 persons in Natzweiler, and out of these experiments roughly 50 are said to have died from the control group. Fraeulein Schmidt stated that she knew this from notes which your technical assistant, Miss Crodel, had made about the typhus experiments at Natzweiler. Can you please tell the Tribunal to which notes Fraeulein Schmidt was referring—in other words, how do you explain her testimony?

A. It is utterly impossible for Fraeulein Schmidt to have seen records of notes of my vaccinations in Natzweiler in which fatalities occurred because as I have already said no one died following the vaccinations. These notes of Fraeulein Crodel’s which Fraeulein Schmidt saw do not refer to the vaccinations. That can be seen from the numbers mentioned, by Fraeulein Schmidt, because I only vaccinated 80 persons at Natzweiler, not 150 to 200 as the witness stated. The witness apparently took this number and the concept of a control group from later writings, which are to be discussed hereafter; but I can imagine to which note she could have been referring.

Q. Please continue, Witness.

A. The witness states correctly when these notes were made, because she says the sun was shining on the pages. That must have been in the spring or summer of 1944. This corresponds with the time when the typhus epidemic was raging in the camp. Thus I assume that Fraeulein Schmidt really did see genuine notes of some sort.

Q. Then, Witness, you are saying that these were notes which were made in the course of an epidemic that took place in Natzweiler, can you tell us when this epidemic broke out?

A. So far as I can state from memory, the epidemic broke out in February or March of 1944. Gradually the number of cases became very large, and in the summer the very considerable figure of roughly 1,200 was reached.

Q. Let me point out in this connection that this epidemic is confirmed by two prosecution witnesses: Grandjean on 6 January (Tr. p. 1099) and the witness Holl on 3 January 1947 (Tr. p. 1058). Both witnesses stated that in the spring of 1944 and also in the summer following, there was a severe typhus epidemic in Natzweiler. The witness Grandjean gave the number as 1,200 to 1,400 cases, as I remember, thus this would agree with what you have just said, Witness. Now, the most important question in this connection is, did the outbreak of this epidemic have any connection with your vaccinations—what I mean is, were your vaccinations the cause of this epidemic?

A. No. There was no connection between the epidemic and our vaccinations. Our vaccinations had already been concluded in January 1944, and the first typhus cases occurred in February or March, and they were brought into the camp from outside, either by transports or from other camps. Let me repeat that the sick people were taken from outside camps to Schirmeck where they were treated in a special department, because there was no way of isolating them in the outside camps.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

Mr. McHaney: Let’s pass on to the notebook. Now, what does the notebook show? What is this notebook?

Witness Haagen: That is a control book in which the experiments with the typhus vaccine on the animals were recorded.

Q. Does that notebook concern your typhus experiments?

A. As far as I can see now, it looks as if that was the current laboratory work which we were carrying out. That is what it looks like, but I’d have to see all of it first.

Q. Now, Professor, you must be able to tell the Tribunal who wrote this book.

A. The technical assistant kept it, and from the handwriting, it looks as if she made these entries; but I can’t interpret every record after such a long time. I have to study it first. We did not only have vaccinations, but also scientific work.

Q. But to the best of your memory, you can state that this notebook was written by Fraeulein Crodel, and it concerns the experiments carried out by you?

A. The laboratory work, as far as I can see at the moment. I would like to make that restriction.

Mr. McHaney: The prosecution asks that Document NO-3852 be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 521 for identification.

Now, Professor, we have covered the chart of the test on the two mice. Let’s go to the notebook itself. And in order to follow my questions, I will ask you to observe the pencil numbers which I have written on this photostatic copy down at the bottom right-hand corner of each page. Do you find that?

A. Yes.

Q. Will you turn to page 3?

If the Tribunal, please, it will be necessary to renumber the pages appearing on your translations. This applies equally to the defense counsel. When the translation was made, they took some pages off the reverse side of the photostatic copy, and because of the two pages appearing for one photostatic copy, they had to be renumbered. Page 5 on the translations should be marked page 3.

Do you find the entry for 30 April 1943, Professor?

A. 30 April ’43, yes.

Q. And that says, “S, plus, plus, 9, Sch.” That is Schirmeck, isn’t it, Professor? “Sch.”?

A. No. That means ninth passage. It is supposed to be “pas.”, ninth passage.

Q. It says “Sch.”, what does “Sch.” mean?

A. It doesn’t look like “Sch.” to me.

Q. What does it look like to you?

A. In German, I think it looks like a “p”, a German “p”.

Q. And you think it should read what?

A. First, I said it is probably “passage—ninth passage”.

Q. All right. Let’s go down to the entry, the next one for 14 May. In parenthesis “two weeks,” does that mean the vaccine had been stored for two weeks?

A. Where is that? I can’t find it.

Q. 14 May, immediately—

A. It probably means that it was stored for two weeks, yes.

Q. And then you go on, and it reads, “1 plus two point two for six mice, point five, I. P. All injected again, six point six immune, only two out of four of the controlled died,” right?

A. Yes. That is right.

Q. Then, the next is 26 May, “four weeks, three dash six,” what does “three dash six” mean, Professor?

A. “Four weeks, three to six,” only I can’t tell you at the moment. I’d have to reconstruct what the assistant wrote.

Q. Well, passing that for the moment. It continues to read, “point 5 per person and six mice point five I. P., five dead after ten, fourteen days. The rest after four weeks.” What does “the rest” refer to, the one mouse? Does that refer to those unidentified persons?

A. No. That refers to the mice. It was simply a mouse experiment. It says “five dead.” We should have all the information on the mice. This is only an extract.

Q. But this is May 1943, when you were vaccinating people in Schirmeck, and this entry says “three dash six, point five per persons”. Now you are not suggesting to the Tribunal that the “persons” are referring to the mice? It continues to say—

A. But when it says “six mice” with “point five”, that was the serum, I suppose, because we were also testing the immunizing effect on mice. I can’t interpret it differently at the moment. “Four weeks”, that means the vaccine had been stored for four weeks. “Point five per persons” were vaccinated. That might mean that it was a comparison experiment, that the effectiveness was to be tested on mice. At the moment I can’t give any exact interpretation. I’d have to study the document very carefully.

Q. What does this “per person” refer to? Talking about human beings, aren’t they?

A. Yes. It is very possible that that was the vaccine which we had injected into the persons in Schirmeck in May of ’43; and then in parallel experiments, we tested it on mice. It was still pathogenic to mice. It was the murine typhus virus.

Q. But not pathogenic to human beings. It killed the mice, but you were sure it wouldn’t kill any human beings, is that right?

A. Yes. The vaccination showed that.

Q. Let’s see what it showed. Let’s look at the entry for 6 July, and you will recall that this is right about the time that our witness, Hirtz, was testifying. On 6 July, “drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons, 3 had fever, Weil-Felix,” and then under number 1 to 8, indicating persons 1 to 8, you give the serum titer count, and then comes a little phrase, “the other two were not here anymore.” Professor, what about these other two persons out of the ten? You remember that the witness Hirtz testified that he personally sewed two bodies up in a paper bag, which were delivered to the crematorium after you had injected your vaccine. Doesn’t this, “the other two are not here anymore”, rather substantiate what the witness Hirtz testified to?

A. No. I wouldn’t say that. In my direct examination, I said that on checking these vaccinated persons, no one was missing. Whether later perhaps—these serological examinations were in May, two months before—whether some of the prisoners went in the meantime, I don’t know. If anyone had died there would have been an entry somewhere in the record, I should think.

Q. Doesn’t that entry say, “the two weren’t here anymore”? Where were these serological examinations in May? I don’t see that in your records. Does it show any serological examinations in May?

A. In the institute. And this is a later check on the immunity through the Weil-Felix experiments.

Q. We will proceed, Professor. Now you testified you did not conduct any vaccinations after May 1943 in Schirmeck, and I must have given you an opportunity at least five times to make that perfectly clear. And even on the last document I put to you, you still insist you did not make any. The next entry reads, “4 October 1943, six months, inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, tube plus 2 cc. distilled water, 0.5 per person”.

Do you want to change your testimony now, Professor?

A. First I have to read it carefully. There is a figure here, “six months”. I have to interpret that “20 persons inoculated in Schirmeck”. Those are probably the 20 people we vaccinated in May, whom the witness here mentioned. “Two cc. distilled water, then 0.5 cc. per person.” I do not know even today that we carried out vaccinations in Schirmeck in the fall of 1943. Then there is an entry on the 27th of January, 1944, “nine months”.

Q. That is right. That gives you the length of time you had this vaccine stored, does it not, Professor? On 4 October 1943 you had it stored six months? You inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck on 4 October, did you not, as you stated in your letter to Rose on the same date: “the inoculations are now progressing,” or words to that effect? You remember you said to Rose in a letter of 4 October 1943, which I put to you, that was just a plan that you would do that. This entry indicates you did do it, does it not, Professor?

A. I must stress what I said before. Afterwards it suddenly says “January 1943”. That is a time much farther back.

Q. Yes, it is further back. It is obviously a mistake, Professor, as you well know. Sometimes people running from December over into January make a mistake and put the last year, you know, and that is obviously what happened in this case because he could not write a contemporaneous entry for January 1943 and then have it appear up above that entry, entries for October, July, and May and April 1943, could he, Professor? You will agree with me that the date should read 27 January 1944, when the vaccine had been stored nine months dating from 30 April 1943, is that not right, Professor?

A. I cannot remember that we vaccinated anybody in Schirmeck later; I am very sorry.

Q. You remember that you did not vaccinate anybody after May, Professor?

A. Yes. That is right.

Q. On 27 January 1944, which is the next entry, “nine months, mixed with the same amount as 21 May distilled water plus tube, 20 persons 10 cc. each”. Those were in Schirmeck, too, were they not, Professor?

A. It says 1 cc., 1 point 0 cc. It does not say anything about Schirmeck. I cannot say. I must assure you once more that I actually know nothing about these vaccinations. I am very sorry.

Q. Let us proceed to page 4, Professor. It is apparently another series on Schirmeck. Do you find the entry on page 4? Your Honors should change page 6 to page 4.

Presiding Judge Beals: Our pages are numbered 1 and 2. You are referring to the numbers on the original document?

Mr. McHaney: Yes, your Honor, page 6 on our translation. Page 6 of the original, should be changed to read page 4 of the original.

Now, Professor, do you find an entry on page 4 before you, of 10 October, “five months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck”? Do you find that, Professor?

Witness Haagen: Yes.

Q. That indicates you inoculated some after 4 October 1943, vaccinations which you mentioned in your letter to Rose, and which are confirmed by this notebook.

And then, under the entry for 10 October, you find 27 January 1944. Does it appear 1944 on the original?

A. 27 January 1944, yes.

Q. Eight months?

A. Eight months, yes.

Q. You speak of inoculating 20 persons there, do you not, Professor? Can you tell the Tribunal that those were done in Schirmeck?

A. I do not know that vaccinations were performed in Schirmeck at this time. We were only vaccinating in Natzweiler at this time, and I did not hear that such vaccinations were carried out. I am sorry.

Q. All right.

A. I am trying to interpret the document.

Q. Professor, let us go on to page 5. Do you find page 5, Professor?

A. Yes.

Q. This mentions another series of inoculations in Schirmeck, “13 July 1943, approximately seven weeks, Schirmeck, 0.5 cc. per person and six mice before the inoculation”.

Let us drop down lower on the page. Do you find the entry for 14 October?

Professor, do you find that?

A. Yes.

Q. “Ten persons inoculated for the third time with 1 cc.” Professor, I thought you told us that you did not carry out multiple vaccinations with your murine vaccine in Schirmeck.

A. I have already testified that the only vaccinations in Schirmeck were in May 1943. I do not know from where this record came. In the fall of 1943 we were only working in Natzweiler. I am sorry, I cannot give any explanation.

Q. This entry, though, Professor, indicates an inoculation for the third time on a series of ten persons. That was your “Infektions-Versuche,” was it not, Professor?

A. No. I know nothing about it; I am sorry.

Q. But your series of three vaccinations was what you referred to as the “Infektions-Versuche,” was it not, Professor?

A. But these were vaccinations which were carried out in Natzweiler, Mr. Prosecutor.

Q. The book says they were carried out in Schirmeck, and about four days before, on the 4th of October 1943, you wrote to Rose and said, “We have to carry out infection experiments.” Professor, is it possible that you really meant by “infection experiments” something other than your three-times vaccination which you had concluded on 14 October 1943?

A. Let me see exactly what it says here, page 5, “10 October-14 October, ten persons, three times point five,” it says again. It only says it is a vaccination, if this document is right.

Q. Does the document say, “Vaccinated ten persons, inoculated for the third time”? Is that what it said?

A. Yes. It says so. In May at Schirmeck in the control group we vaccinated three times. That is not impossible; but what I notice on this document, if you want to connect it with the Ipsen vaccine, is that it does not say anything about the Ipsen vaccine; I have not found that yet, but it does say Gildemeister.

Q. I have not mentioned anything about Ipsen vaccine. Let us proceed, Professor, so that we get through before the noon recess. Remember, you testified you had not carried out any vaccinations in Natzweiler after January 1944. Professor, will you turn to page 7 of this little notebook on your experiments, and while this is not the only entry which shows that you carried out vaccination experiments in Natzweiler after January 1944, I think it will be sufficient for our purposes. Do you have page 7? Will you find the entry?

A. Yes. I have page 7.

Q. Will you find the entry for 25 May 1944?

A. Yes.

Q. Does that read, “Together with S inoculated, used up five tubes of MI in Natzweiler; two ampules distilled water, three to four cubic centimeters per ampule vaccine, 0.5 cc. The inoculation took place during the incubation period, a transport also containing sick people, 13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died.”

Then it continues to give the titer value of some of the others. Professor, don’t you have to change your testimony about vaccination in Natzweiler?

A. No. I cannot change it. I know nothing about this.

Q. Professor, let us look at words “together with S”. What do you understand “together with S” to mean? It is 25 May 1944?

A. I have no idea what “S” means.

Q. You testified that the defendant Schroeder visited you and you fixed the date, 25 May 1944. Is there any possibility that that “S” could mean Schroeder?

A. No. That is quite impossible. Impossible. Professor Schroeder never carried out any experiments with me nor did any work in my laboratory. He was not with me in Schirmeck or Natzweiler.

Q. He was not with you in Natzweiler?

A. No.

10. EXPERIMENTS WITH POISON

a. Introduction

The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct involving experiments with poison (par. 6 (K) of the indictment). Only the defendant Mrugowsky was convicted on this charge.

The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the experiments with poison is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Mrugowsky. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 631 to 632. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant Mrugowsky. It appears below on pages 633 to 634. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 634 to 639.

b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution

EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY

Poison Experiments

Poison experiments were carried out in the Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen concentration camps by order of the defendant Mrugowsky (Tr. pp. 1183-6). The first series of the experiments was carried out in December 1943 in order to determine the fatal dosage of poisons of the alkaloid group. These experiments were requested by the SS judge, Morgen, who investigated the criminal case against Koch, camp commander of Buchenwald, and the defendant Hoven. Hoven was suspected of having killed a witness against Koch and himself by means of poison. Four Russian prisoners of war were experimented upon by Ding. The poison was administered to the experimental subjects in their food without their knowledge. All four survived, but were strangled in a crematorium of the concentration camp in order that autopsies could be performed. (Tr. pp. 1183-6; NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287.) Since Ding was subordinated to Mrugowsky, this experiment could not have been performed by Ding without Mrugowsky’s approval.

On 11 September 1944 Mrugowsky and Ding carried out an experiment with aconitine nitrate projectiles in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. The projectiles were filled with crystallized poison and five experimental subjects were shot in the upper part of the left thigh with these projectiles. In two cases, no effect of the poison could be observed. In the other three cases, the suffering of the experimental subjects was terrible. All three died after approximately two hours of agony. The poison bullets used in the experiments were allegedly of Russian origin. (NO-201, Pros. Ex. 290.)

The experimental subjects were Russian prisoners of war. (Tr. p. 1186; see also Kogon’s testimony in Case 4.^[67]) Mrugowsky admitted his participation in these experiments. He defended himself on the ground that he was the legally appointed executioner in this case. Assuming the truth of this absurd statement, it cannot be held legal to torture to death prisoners of war even if they had been validly sentenced to death.

On 26 October 1944 still another poison experiment was carried out by Ding in Buchenwald. The entry in the Ding diary for that date states: “Special experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS Oberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA. (Report on this orally.)” Kogon testified that Ding told him the Russian prisoners of war used in the experiments died in a short time. They were later dissected and burned. Ding reported to Mrugowsky orally. These experiments were connected with the poison bullet experiments in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp. (Tr. pp. 1185-1186.)

c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense

EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
MRUGOWSKY^[68]

In respect to the poison experiments, I proved in my written statement that Ding’s assertion that Mrugowsky had ordered him to be present at a euthanasia killing by phenol is not correct. Professor Killian, who according to Ding’s statement, was present when the order was given, said that this statement of Ding’s was incorrect. It showed that the examination of the question of whether the noxious effect of serums containing phenol can be proved by the comparative use of serums with and without phenol, and also a series of experiments with serums containing phenol was never carried out.

The experiments with pervitin were carried out on the initiative of Dr. Morgen and Dr. Wehner, according to the Ding diary. I proved that no harm was caused to the health of the experimental subjects by these experiments. The experiments were performed with pervitin which can be obtained in any chemist’s shop without a prescription and consequently is not a poison. In the experiments it was used together with a narcotic because the authority wanted to determine whether, as a result of this treatment, the effect was increased one way or the other. The only effect was that the experimental subjects fell into a disturbed sleep for up to 20 hours. This pervitin experiment was not ordered by Mrugowsky; he did not participate therein in any way, and the prosecution did not even contend that he knew of it. No responsibility under criminal law may be deduced against him from this experiment.

With regard to the special experiment on 6 persons mentioned in Ding’s diary, it is again solely the witness Kogon who gave details. In my closing brief I pointed out that, in this case too, Kogon gave contradictory testimony in the Pohl trial^[69] and the doctors’ trial about the origin of this experiment. Thus his evidence has no probative value. Moreover, Kogon’s description of this experiment, except for the sealing and the burning of the prescription, is only based on Ding’s statements. In respect to this special experiment, there is no evidence whatsoever to show the type of poison used, the manner in which the special experiment was performed, and the aim of the experiment. After the collapse, Ding told the defendant Sievers that towards the end of 1944 in Buchenwald he had filled 80 phials with prussic acid in order to commit suicide, but he unfortunately took none of them with him.

No one can prove whether Ding carried out his “special experiment” with these prussic acid capsules because Ding left no report about the course of the special experiment.

The Ding diary states that the experiment was performed by order of Mrugowsky and the Reich Criminal Police Office. Because the diary has such little probative value, the truth of this contention cannot be proved by this document alone. No other evidence has been submitted to show that Ding poisoned 6 prisoners by order of Mrugowsky. Therefore there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Mrugowsky ordered this experiment or that he even knew about it.

The prosecution further indicted Mrugowsky because of an execution performed at Sachsenhausen in which ten bandits sentenced to death were executed with bullets poisoned with aconitine. I have proved that Mrugowsky attended this execution only as the usual doctor present at an execution. I further demonstrated that the execution took place because, in an attempt on the life of a high-ranking civil servant in the General Government, Russian revolver ammunition had been used in which hollow bullets had been filled with aconitine poison. This use of poisoned Russian bullets, and Henderson’s book which described the preparation for the use of poisoned bullets in the First World War, had increased the concern that poisoned bullets would shortly be used at the front. I proved that poisoned ammunition was used at the execution to determine whether pure aconitine or a poison mixture had been used in the bullets, and how much time would be available in case of need to administer antidotes.

I proved that all executions in the concentration camps were ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office, and that the presence of a doctor at such executions was prescribed. The execution at Sachsenhausen was ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office. No charge under criminal law can be deduced against Mrugowsky from his attendance as a doctor at the execution. I have explained this in detail in my closing brief.

d. Evidence