Q. Now, in connection with the bone experiments, witness, would you tell us in your own words what you know of the bone experiments?
A. In my evidence - in my x-ray evidence - I had thirteen bone operations. That is, thirteen cases of persons whose bones had been ******** on. In my opinion there were three kinds of bone operations. They were fractures, bone transplantation with removal of bones, and so-called bone splints. The girls were operated on several times. The operations were to be aseptic but because of negligence and lack of aseptics two of them developed osteomyelitis
Q. In connection with these bone cases did you ever personally have conversation with Dr. Oberheuser?
A. Yes.
Q. ********************** of that conversations doctor?
A. It was the case of Krystyna Dabska. She was sent to me for an x-ray picture. Shortly after the operation - a few days after the operation-she had both her logs ------. I took x-ray pictures and from that on both legs small pieces, about 4 to 5 cm. long, had been taken from the fibula had been cut out of the fibula. I read on the cast that on one leg periosteum had remained and on the other leg periosteum had been removed together with bone. Because I was of the opinion that attempt was made to check regeneration I asked Dr. Oberheuser, "How do you want to get regeneration of bone if the bones are removed with periosteum?" I was given the answer, "That is just what we want to check."
Q. Now, witness, was there anyone else who underwent the removal of their fibula in the same way that Krystyna Dabska did? Any other girls?
A. Yes. I know of another case. That ****************. She was operated on in the same, or approximately the same way.
Q. Now, do think with your knowledge of medicine, being an x-ray specialist, consequently having good knowledge of bone work, do you think that such an experiment was necessary?
A. No.
Q. Then, witness, is it an experiment or is it a subject commonly known in text books and not necessary to experiment on a thing of this nature?
A. Yes. Every student knows that. You learn that in the beginning of your studies.
Q. Now, witness, you have stated that there were three types of bone operations - bone transplantations, bone fractures, and bone incisions. Now, in these cases of bone fractures would you kindly tell the court of the conditions in connection with those experiments?
A. I recall two cases exactly. Ja**na Marczewska and Leonarda Bien. In the cases of both of these girls on the operation table several fractures were inflicted on the tibia in the operation and afterwards clamps were put on Marczewska. In the case of Leonarda Bien none. Both girls were given plaster casts and were in the hospital. Plaster casts did not remain long not six weeks - only two or three weeks and were removed and these bones healed without dressings. Marczewska was operated on once more and the clamps were removed. Those wore fracture operations.
Q. As the result of those operations did they impede locomotion of the two girls operated on?
A. At the time when they were in the camp, yes. I have not seen them now.
Q. Now, witness, of the three, types of bone experiments that you have stated, the so-called bone incisions, would you kindly tell us what you know of that type of experiment?
A. A few were operated on for bone incisions, but I remember one case exactly. That was Barbara Piotrzyk, the youngest of those who were operated on, 16 years old. She was operated on six times. At the first operation, incisions were made twice in each ***bia. Then she was taken to an operation again and pieces of the tibia were out where the incisions had been made beforehand. Once I was given an order when the operation took place that I was to stay in the X-Ray room, and I was brought a piece of tibia that had been cut out and an incision had been made in this piece before; and I had to take an X-Ray picture of this piece of bone.
Q. Now, witness, as a result of these three types of bone operations, did many of these girls develop a condition of osteomyelitis?
A. In the time when I saw the experiments and was able to check on them two had secondary infection from lack of asepsis and treatment. They had osteomyelitis. That was Maria Grabowska and Maria Cabaj.
Q. Now, witness, we have mentioned a third experiment, the muscle and nerve regeneration or operations. Would you kindly tell the Tribunal, Doctor, what you know about those experiments?
A. The group of muscle experiments were rather large. The girls were operated on several times, and the youngest, Sledziewjowska was operated on most often. At the first operation muscles were cut out and at the second and third other pieces of muscles -- always at the same place, so that the legs got thinner and weaker all the time.
Q. Now, witness, do you know what the purpose of these experiments on muscles and nerves was; from your observation do you know what they were seeking for?
A. No. Why these operations were carried out, I cannot understand. Whether the cut-out pieces of muscle were taken to Hohenlychen, I do not know.
Q. Well, then, it might be reasonable to say that these experiments were merely carried out as a histological report of the various stages of tissue reaction, is that correct?
A. I imagine so. I know that in bone experiments that was the point at issue, the regeneration question.
Q. Now, witness, you have referred to other operations, special operations, of the removal of whole extremities and so forth. Would you kindly toll the Court what you know about those other special operations during your time at Ravensbruck at the hospital?
A. Abnormal patients, that is feeble-minded or insane, about ton of them were selected. They were taken to the hospital and prepared for operation. I personally know of two cases which were operated on. The one case that was a leg amputation. I know that the nurses from the hospital brought the woman to the operation room and after some time the nurses took her to the special room where the dead were kept. That was from the operation room, she was taken directly to this little room whore the dead were kept. The door was locked, and then together with another comrade who worked in the hospital, Kusmierczuk, I wont into this room and looked, and I saw a corpse covered with a cloth and where there should have been two legs, I saw only one leg through the cloth. Afterwards the nurses came and themselves personally, without the aid of prisoners, put the body in a coffin and carried it out in order to preserve secrecy. Then, I know of a second case. Again an abnormal woman was taken into the operation room. This day I know Dr. Fischer went into the operation room. After some time, Dr. Fischer, after the operation, got into his car -- he always came by car with a chauffeur -- and one operation nurse brought a bundle wrapped up in linen about as big as an arm might be and Dr. Fischer personally took it on his lap and drove away. The the prisoner, Quernheim, came to me. "You know what happened today Sofia? The whole arm with shoulder blade was taken off". Those were the two cases of special operations which I personally know about.
Q. Now, witness, are you of the opinion that Doctors Gebhardt, Fischer and Oberheuser, whom you have outlined as the ones who worked on and performed these experiments, neglected their duty as a physician toward the patients and that their neglect was the direct cause of the death of the five/girls we have mentioned hero this morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, witness, do you know whether or not any other girls died as a result of these experiments or died because they had been subjected to the experiments?
A. I know that six who had been operated on were shot after the operations.
Q. How many did you say, witness?
A. Sic.
Q. Now, witness, do you think that this neglect of care of behalf of Doctors Oberheuser, Gebhardt and Fischer contri buted to the mutilation and crippling result of many of these girls who had been subjected to the experiment?
A Yes.
Q Did this neglect go so far that even in so-called aseptic operations, infection occurred which caused lasting and mutilating osteomyelitis?
A Yes.
Q Now, witness, in connection with the five girls, are you of the opinion, from your knowledge of these five girls who died, that that that was the direct result of the work of the three people, Gebhardt, Fischer and Oberheuser?
A Yes.
Q Now, witness, you have stated that six girls after being subjected to these experiments were shot?
A Yes.
Q Now, could you tell me whether or not Dr. Oberheuser in her position as camp physician could have protected the six girls who were shot in spite of their submission to these experiments?
A Two of them: Rosalia Gutek was still sick in the hospital after the operation when she was taken for execution. Dr. Oberheuser postponed it. Another, Amiela Sobolewska, was called for execution, but she still had to have an X-ray picture taken -- the execution was postponed; therefore, Dr. Oberheuser twice was able to postpone the execution.
Q Then do you feel that she could have postponed, in her high position as camp physician, the execution of these girls for an unlimited length of time?
A I think so, yes.
Q Now, witness, was there an attempt made after the completion of all these experiments to completely wipe out all the girls who had been operated on in Ravensbruck Concentration Camp?
A Yes.
Q In other words, these girls were all to be executed after completion of the operation?
A A Yes. They all believed that they would be executed.
Q Now, witness -
AAnd they were confirmed in that opinion by the death sentence that were executed on their comrades, that is the six that were shot, and finally in February of '45 again all who had been operated on were called together, and they were told they would be put on a transport to Gross-Rosen, and GrossRosen as we knew from the "Voelkischer Beobachter" was already in Allied hands Therefore they knew that they were going to be killed, but there was already disorganization in the camp and the girls hid. They took other numbers and were able to save their lives.
Q Now, witness, did any of the young ladies subjected to these experiments volunteer for the experiments?
A No.
Q Were any of the young ladies ever pardoned or allowed to return to their homes from the concentration camp after subjection to these experiments?
A Yes, there was one case, Okoniewska, she was called to the front office, and she was told, "You have been pardoned. You will be set free and sent home," and it was done.
Q Now, witness, I realize a considerable length of time has passed, but do you think that you could possibly identify Doctors Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer in this dock to your right?
A Yes, I can try.
Q Would you kindly arise from your chair and come down onto the floor and go over to the dock and pick out those three people? Point to them and name them as you choose whichever one. they may be.
A Yes. (Witness complies)
Q Witness, you have said that the man furthest over is Dr. Fischer, is that right? Will you stand up, translator? You have said that the person sitting next to Dr. Fischer is Dr. Oberheuser, is that right?
A Yes.
MR. HARDY: I respectfully request that the record show that the witness has properly identified the defendants Fischer and Oberheuser.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so show.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Doctor, would you attempt again to identify Dr. Gebhardt? Did you identify the first, second, or third man as Dr. Gebhardt?
A It may be that I am not quite certain. Professor Gebhardt looked different at that time. I had an opportunity twice to see Professor Gebhardt. He had much more hair at that time, a rounder face, he was younger, and he did not hold his lips compressed so much.
Q Witness, was Dr. Gebhardt an extremely heavy man when you saw him at Ravensbruck?
A. He looked better -- especially his face.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will also show that the witness did not correctly identify the defendant Gebhardt.
Is there any cross-examination of this witness by any of the counsel for defendants?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser and Fischer):
Q. Witness, you spoke of "an assistant of the defendant Gebhardt" whose name you do not remember?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it possible that it was Dr. Stumpfegger?
A. That is possible; I did know the name but I have forgotten it, but if you will mention the name "Stumpfegger", I agree. I know that name.
Q. It was a very tall man, with many awards.
A. Yes; it was a good looking, tall man -- taller than Dr. Fischer.
Q. Other witnesses have testified that in addition to the physicians which you mentioned, there were the following physicians, who conducted operations. Do you know the name Trommer?
A. No.
Q. Do you know the name of Klimmek?
A. Yes; Dr. Klimmek. Yes.
Q. Have you ever heard the name of Dr. Hartmann?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hear the name of Dr. Fillmann?
A. No.
Q. You spoke about operations which were carried out in the summer of 1943, in the bunker?
A. Yes; I know that such operations were carried out.
Q. Do you know who conducted these operations?
A. Among the doctors who carried out the operations I did not see Dr. Fischer. I was under arrest in the bunker at that time and I happened to be on the corridor.
Q. So, you neither saw Dr. Gebhardt nor Dr. Oberheuser?
A. At that time, in the bunker, I did not see those three people.
Q. I now come to the case of Weronika Kraska. This is the experimental subject of whom you stated that she died of tetanus?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you ever see, in the hospital, any cultures of tetanus baccilli?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see that Weronika Kraska was injected with tetanus baccilli?
A. How could I see such a thing if it was done in the operation room? I saw the symptoms of tetanus when she was in bed.
Q. Do you know when Weronika Kraska was operated on?
A. It was in October 1942.
Q. Do you know exactly when these tetanus symptoms started after the operation?
A. After a few days.
Q. Do you think that it is completely out of the question that the tetanus, as you mentioned, was not the consequence of an intended infection with tetanus baccilli, but the consequence of an accidental uncleanliness of the wound?
A. No; when she was taken to the operation I looked at her superficially and there were no wounds, no changes in the skin. They had to have the skin clean.
Q. Do you mean to say that Weronika Kraska, when she showed these tetanus symptoms, was not wounded at all?
A. Beforehand; Before the operation? No.
Q. No. What I mean is whether, when the tetanus symptoms occurred, she had no wound at all?
A. On the body -- on the corpse -- as far as I can remember, I saw no wounds.
Q. Then how can you say that, in the case of Weronika Kraska, a tetanus infection was carried out with intention?
A. Dr. Rosenthal said, in our laboratory: "It is tetanus infection."
Q. But he did not tell you that this tetanus infection was intentionally carried out?
A. Weronika Kraska was taken for operation. After the operation, Weronika died with the symptoms of tetanus. Weronika Kraska, before the operation, was healthy.
Q. But according to what you arc saying now, I have to assume that Weronika Kraska was operated on before her death.
A. Weronika Kraska was among those who were operated on.
Q. Well then, how can you exclude the possibility that the tetanus infection did not come about accidentally, because of the unclean state of the wound?
A. I can only say that she died with symptoms of tetanus. I know of cases where aseptic operations were carried out and the people got osteomyelitis, but because I saw that the people were infected with oedema malignum, or gangrene, why shouldn't they have been infected with tetanus too, especially when Dr. Rosenthal talked about it?
Q. So, from the fact that staphylocci, streptococci and gangreneproducing baccilli were used, you conclude from this fact that tetanus baccilli were used also?
A. Yes.
Q. But that is a conclusion?
A. Yes, of course. One person died of tetanus.
Q. But what I want to know is whether you can exclude the fact that, accidentally, a tetanus infection in that connection -- in connection with the operation ---- could have come about?
A. I cannot assume that there was tetanus by accident in the operation room.
Q. You further stated that, in the case of two women, certain limbs were removed; with one woman, a leg, and with another woman, an arm?
A. Yes.
Q. Are these all the cases of this kind of which you know?
A. There were only those two cases of which I personally know.
Q. In that case, I should like to show you the Exhibit 232, which is an affidavit made by you on the 6th of April.
A. Yes.
Q. There you state, among other things, the following: "A few protective custody prisoners were selected and brought to the operating table, and operations were performed upon the entire leg, and sometimes the entire arm was amputated.
Afterwards the victims were killed with evipan, and the leg or the arm was taken to Hohenlychen."?
A. Yes; that is true.
Q. One moment, witness. And then you continue that, "there were approximately ten such operations carried out." I am now asking you, how do you know that there were ten cases, and not only two, as you said before?
A. About ten were prepared, and I personally saw two.
Q. What do you understand by "prepared"?
A. Taken to the hospital, and put in a room and they waited for the operation.
Q. But the other eight were not operated upon?
A. I personally did not see them.
Q. You cannot say that with certainty?
A. I can only say that I saw two for certain, and I saw the others when they were prepared for operation.
Q. So it was not correct, what you stated in your affidavit, that ten such operations were carried out?
A. Ten were prepared for operation and I saw two of them.
Q. The first case which you say that you saw yourself is the amputation of a leg?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who conducted this operation?
A. No; I did not see which of the doctors went in the operation room.
Q. The second case was the amputation of an arm?
A. As far as Gerda Quernheim told me about it. I only saw the bundle that was carried out. Dr. Fischer operated at that time.
Q. But you did not see what was in that bundle?
A. No. Gerda Quernheim told me that. I say expressly. I described how it happened.
Q. Yes. You spoke about muscle and bone operations. Can you say who was conducting these experiments and at what time they were conducted?
A. The muscle operations, like all the others, were between August 1942 and March 1943. When the bone operations began, they continued with muscle operations. Which doctor performed which operation, I do not know. I was not in the operating room, but I know which doctor went into the operating room. Then the patient, that is, the person who had been prepared for operation, a healthy person, was taken in, and then she was brought out after she had been operated on.
Q. Do you still remember how often this Dr. Stumpfegger, whom you mentioned, came to Ravensbruck for the purpose of conducting these experiments?
A. Less often than Dr. Fischer. Rather often they both came together. It was more at the time when bone operations were performed that the second assistant, hat is, Dr. Stumpfegger, also came.
Q. You state that nerve operations were carried on?
A. Yes.
Q. What kind of operations were they?
A. I remember only one case; that is Barbara Pietnevska. Her leg was operated on, and I think that a nerve operation was performed because she had (lameness of the) peroneus.
Q. The sulfonamide experiment, therefore, was not conducted with this woman?
A No; that was an aseptic operation.
Q Do you remember who conducted these aseptic operations?
A Who operated on her, specifically? No.
Q In your first affidavits, you mentioned the names of the individual experimental subjects; is that correct?
A Oh, all the names of the operated persons, yes.
Q Among them, Bokimila Popinska was mentioned?
A Yes.
Q Are you quite sure that an operation was carried through in her case?
A Yes; of course. Not one -
Q I beg your pardon.
A In the case of Popinska there were several operations.
Q Many operations. And how was it in the case of Pilagia Bieschalik: was she operated on?
A Yes.
Q Are you quite sure of that?
A That she was operated on? I know for sure; yes.
Q You further stated that towards the end of April, you were liberated from the camp at Ravensbruck and brought to Sweden. At that time, was the terrain or the area where Ravensbruck was under German domination?
A Yes. My transport left the camp on the 25th of April, and the Red Army came to the camp, as my comrades told me later, on the 30th of April.
Q The Red Army only came into the camp on the 30th of April?
A Yes; that is what my comrades told me.
Q And you were brought to Sweden by the mediation of the Swedish Red Cross?
A I went with a transport which the SS people took to the Danish border, and only from the Danish border on, were we taken over by the Danish Red Cross, and turned over to the Swedish Red Cross.
Q And the SS people brought you to the Danish frontier?
A We were taken to the Danish border by the SS.
Q Do you remember that a few days before the transport from Ravensbruck, there were representatives of the Swiss Red Cross in Ravensbruck?
A No.
Q Another few final questions. Do you know when Amilia Levanowitch was operated on?
A Yes; October or the end of September. Beginning of October. October was the period of operations.
Q Do you know how many women were operated on?
A In my opinion, six.
Q And how many died?
A Five
Q And the only surviving woman, according to your opinion, was Kuznerchuk?
A. Yes.
In your affidavit you stated that Maria Kusmierczuk was the experimental subject who had the most severe mutilations; that was your opinion, yesterday?
A Yes.
Q You must know that Kusmierczuk was here interrogated in this court room?
A Yes, I heard about it.
Q Can you remember when Sofia Kiecol was operated on?
AAlso in October.
Q And Alfreda Prus?
AAlso in October.
DR. SEIDL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess.
JUDGE BEALS: Is there any further cross-examination of this witness by defense counsel?
DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky):
Q. Witness, you formerly said that during the operations was a lack of asepsis. Well you please describe to the Tribunal why you conclude such fact?
A. Before the operations all these matters seemed to have been done correctly. After the operations there was gross negligence; bandages were not sterilized and the instruments were not sterilized either. The patients were left in terrible rooms. They were crowded together without any proper medical aid, without any care whatsoever. Because of the blackouts the window shutters had been closed during the right and the air in the rooms was terrible.
Q. Was there a difference between the operations in the operation room and in the bunker in this connection?
A. The operations which were carried out in the bunker were carried out at a time when conditions in the bunker were, of course, horrible. They had nothing whatsoever to do with an operating room.
Q. How many persons were infected with the individual kinds of cultures infected with streptococci and other cultures like that?
A. As far as I know, 13 bone transplantations were carried out. 1 nerve operation and 6 anaerobes, and the further ones can be divided into muscle operations and infecting operations with streptococci and staphylococci.
Q. You misunderstood me witness. What I meant was that during the anaerobe infections, how many persons were infected with the different kinds of cultures?
A. In my opinion, ** anaerobe operations.
Q. Six persons?
A. Yes, six persons.
Q. With anaerobes?
A. With anaerobes.
Q. And how about streptococci and others?
A. I have just explained to you that the further total number of 74 was divided between streptococci and staphylococci and muscle operations.
Q. I should like to know from you how the arc divided--how many persons were infected with each?
A. Exactly how many muscle and how many streptococci were carried out I cannot state in detail.
Q. You cannot state that. Did you hear, witness, whether during these operations the wounds were artificially infected with pieces of glass, pieces of wood, and other particles?
A. During the dressings we saw that with the flowing pus there were also other bodies.
Q. Did. you see, in the case of Weronika Kraska, anything like that happening?
A. No.
Q. Thank you, I have no further questions.
JUDGE BEALS: Is there any further cross-examination of this witness on the part of any defense counsel? There being none offered, is there any redirect examination by the Prosecution?
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no further questions to put to this witness, Your Honor.
JUDGE BEALS: There being no further examination of the witness, the witness may be excused.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, we have a number of points to clear up and some what might be termed miscellaneous documents to put in before proceeding to the charge of Euthanasia in the Indictment. Perhaps the first thing we might dispense with is the statement made by Defense Counsel for Pokorny at the conclusion of yesterday's session, that the Prosecution was interested in interrogating a certain witness which he had requested. That matter has been straightened out to the satisfaction of both the Prosecution and Defense, and resulted from a misunderstanding on the part of the gentleman in charge of the Defense Information Center. As a matter of fact, the Prosecution has no intention of examining this witness requested by the defense. I might say, however, since this subject has been brought up, that there will be isolated occasions where both the Prosecution and the Defense have endeavored to locate a certain individual.
To give two specific examples, I would mention the names of Erick Hippke, the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe prior to the time that Schroeder took over in 1944, and Eugen Haagen, the doctor abut whom the Tribunal has heard some proof in connection with typhus experiments at the Natzweiler Concentration Camp. As I recall, either one or both of those men have been requested as defense witnesses. The fact is, however, that the Prosecution has been endeavoring for some months past to locate Hippke and Haagen. We have now found then, through the efforts of our own investigation staffs, and in these cases and in such similar cases as may arise, the Prosecution intends to interrogate these men prior to the time that they are made available to defense counsel.
The second point which we might attempt to clarify at this time is the issue of interpretation raised with respect to Document Number NO-139which was admitted as Prosecution Exhibit No. 317 late yesterday. The Tribunal will recall that this document concerned yellow fever and the defense counsel for Rose took issue with the interpretation of the German word "probe" (p-r-o-b-e). The full sentence in which that word appeared was translated by our department as follows:
"In connection with my letter of 26 February and your long distance telephone call of...."
JUDGE BEALS: On what page of the document book is that document found?
MR. McHANEY: It is on page 113 of the Typhus Document Book, Your Honor. The full sentence reads:
"In connection with may letter of 26 February and your long distance telephone call 6 March, I must advise that the Japanese Oberstabsarzt has in the meantime contacted Oberstarzt Prof. Dr. Rose of the Luftwaffe Medical Service and that the latter has promised to secure for him from Strasbourg all the accounts concerning the yellow fever virus experiments which are important to him" Now the dispute centers around the interpretation of the German word "probe" which we have translated as "experiments."
Rose and his defense counsel urge that the word should be translated "sample" and that the sense of the sentence would be that Rose had promised to secure information concerning the yellow fever virus samples which are important to the Japanese medical officer.
I think that the Prosecution must take the position that this interpretation is a matter of argument and that we must consequently insist that the interpretation as presented to the Tribunal be admitted as the position of the Prosecution. I do not think, as a matter of fact, that it is a point of great importance but in any event I have before me a German-English dictionary. It is Cassell's New German Dictionary by Karl Breul. It is the edition of 1939 and on page 461 we find the German word "Probe" and the English definitions following the word are, first, "trial," "experiment;" "probation," "proff", "test"; "exhibition;" "ordeal;" "assay;" "pattern," "sample," "specimen;" and so forth. Therefore it is apparent that the word can be translated in the manner in which we have translated it and therefore I submit it is a question of argument and the defense counsel for Rose is, of course, at liberty to urge that the context of the letter or to argue on the basis of other grounds that the correct interpretation is "sample" but under the circumstances I do not see that the Prosecution can concede the point although we do not regard it as of paramount importance.