That would incriminate the defendant Weltz and all other defendants involved in freezing experiments.
On page 74 Sievers has added a note to this letter and forwarded it apparently to Dr. Rascher. Sievers here refers to the activities in connection with trying to obtain equipment for the high altitude experiments.
The next document is on page 75, is NO 3674 and is offered as Exhibit 549. This letter of the 20 October 1942 from Sievers to Dr. Wuest, who was curator of Ahnenerbe and who was also rector of the Munich University requests certain materials and supplies which will be used for experiments to be performed in Munich.
The next document, on page 77 of the Document Book, is NO 3819, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 550. This is a letter of 29 October 1942 from the defendant Sievers to Dr. Hirt at Strassburg stating that an Ahnenerbe subsidy will be made available to Hirt in support of his research activities.
Coming to the next document on page 78 of the Document Book. This is Document NO 2506 which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 551. This is a cross-affidavit secured with the permission of the Tribunal from Dr. Hans Reiter who made an affidavit on behalf of Processor Handloser which, as the affidavit states, was Document Handloser 25. This document relates to the typhus conference 29 December 1941 and the affiant expresses some doubt concerning just how explicit the understanding was at that conference that artificial typhus infection should be made on concentration camp inmates to test the efficacy of the typhus vaccine.
The balance of the documents in the Document Book relate to Euthanasia. Coming to page 80 is Document NO 3356, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 552. We have here a transport list from Eglfing insane asylum dated 18 January 1940 and the first name on the list is the name of a Jewish person as indicated by the name Israel.
The Tribunal recalls that the witness Leibrandt testified that all Jewish people had to take certain names to indicate their race. The name Israel was the name for the men. This list is signed by one Vorberg who was in charge of the transport company, and his name appeared on the chart of the defendant Brack in connection with Euthanasia activities.
The next document on page 81 of the document book, NO 3355 is offered as Exhibit 553. This document signed by Pfannmeuller who appeared as a defense witness before this Tribunal relates mostly to administrative details of Euthanasia concerning children.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt): Mr. President, the document has 3 annexes to which reference is made. They describe the condition of the children. I ask that the Prosecution submit the entire document and not only the first page. I am very interested in the condition of the children at that time. It says, above: "Enclosures: 3 Reports." However, these 3 reports are not attached.
MISS JOHNSON: The Prosecution would be glad to supply these reports if they had them but we do not have them. They were not found with the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: In that case I ask the Tribunal to instruct the Prosecution to give me a report on how these documents were found. It seems peculiar to me that the main document was found and the enclosures were not found. There must be some report on that.
MISS JOHNSON: Dr. Servatious, you observe in the top paragraph related to deformed children - I believe that is the subject you are most interested in, isn't it - the deformity of children?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. There must be an exact report on these 3 children and I think that this dates back to the beginning of the Reich Committee at the time when the Eglfing institution was active. The expert has told us that these children were carefully selected. On the other hand, somebody else said that these children were who were reported on.
MISS JOHNSON: Your Honor, there is no certainty that the information which Dr. Servatius seeks to obtain in this connection would be available, even if we did have the reports.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would instruct the Prosecution to furnish Dr. Servatius and bring before the Tribunal these 3 annexes if they had them; but as it is stated they do not have them, if the Prosecution can give Dr. Servatius any information as to where they found this document, they should do so.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, these documents, as you will plainly notice -this particular document has the initial of Pfannmueller on it. Therefore it is a carbon copy and I imagine it was standard procedure in Pfannmueller' office, as it would be in a law office or any other office, that if you make reports you do not usually make voluminous copies of them.
This here apparently is the cover-letter that went with the reports. It was found in the Pfannmueller files, at his institute. As a matter of fact, these documents were found in early 1945 by none less than the investigating team conducted by Dr. Leo Alexander. They are contained in a CINFO report, which was bound and published by an organization, that is Combined Intelligence and Detective Agencies of the British and United States Armed Forces. It would be rather difficult for me to go into any further detail to explain the source of the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: You have just complied with counsel Servatius' request that he get information that was available and the Prosecution has given it, which is sufficient.
DR. SERVATIUS: Thank you.
MISS JOHNSON: Turning to the next document which is on page 82 of the document book and which is document NO-3354, which will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 554, we have further evidence in connection with the Euthanasia program. This shows that a Jewish person has met his death at Lublin. This statement confirms the statement of Brack's witness, Pfannmueller, that Jewish people were sent to Lublin and I believe the defendant Brack made a statement on the same subject.
Turning now to page 85 of the document book, which is NO-2094, which will be offered as Exhibit 555...
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how about document NO-2094 on page 83?
MISS JOHNSON: Your Honor, in my book it skips from 82 to 85. On 82 we have 3354 and I don't know whether that's 85 or 83, NO-2094 -83. I guess that is 83 perhaps.
DR. FROSCHMANN (Counsel for the defendant Brack): Could you please hand me the original? Mr. President, I must object to the admission of this document. Obviously this is a document which was not signed. The minimum required of a document is the fact that it at least indicate the sender. Neither the name or the address of the sender has been started here.
THE PRESIDENT: Pass the document to the Tribunal.
MISS JOHNSON: Your Honor, this document was found in the files of the Ministry for Eastern Territories. It was one of the documents that was found with documents which were submitted to Brack on cross-examination and which were apparently admissible at that time although, of course, the admissibility of those documents has not been determined for certain. It relates to the question of whether or not Brack received a certain letter dated November 1941, which he denied on examination that he received, and this is proof of the fact that the letter was sent.
DR. FROSCHMANN: Mr. President, may I state in that connection that in the document which was submitted to Brack during the cross-examination, no letter dated 11 November 1941 was mentioned? The letter which was submitted to Brack was dated the 25th of October 1941. Therefore no letter 11 November 1941 could have been attached?
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal. This document purports to be an original German document, found by our forces in the overrunning of Germany. It is obvious from the contents thereof that it was around the November period of 1941. I assure you that we didn't manufacture it. It was found by the Allied Forces here in Germany. It is a German document and it has probative value here it is...
JUDGE SERBRING: What probative value does it have, Mr. Hardy, in its present form?
THE PRESIDENT: And against whom?
JUDGE SEBRING: And against whom and by whom?
MR. HARDY: It has the probative value that Miss Johnson just outlined to you and that is in that it refers to Oberdienstleiter Brack right in the document.
DR. FROSCHMANN: Mr. President, that may have been a draft. It may have been a copy. It need never have been sent. It is a document which lacks every trace of probative value and admissibility.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained. This document will not be admitted.
MR HARDY: If your Honor please, would the situation change if the Prosecution could produce positive evidence where this document was obtained, from what file folder and in what ministry?
THE PRESIDENT: At most this simply refers to a letter sent to certain persons including the defendant Brack.
MR. HARDY: Well, inasmuch as I did not take the cross-examination of the defendant Brack I assume that the purpose of this document is to refute and rebutt answers that the defendant Brack gave concerning his connection with the Reich Kommissar for the East and the Reich Kommissar.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course the Tribunal will reserve the ruling if counsel desires to examine the evidence in the case of defendant Brack. We can hear from counsel again Monday.
MISS JOHNSON: The next document appears on page 89 of the document book. It is NO-1874. It will be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 555.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what number is the number of the document to which you are referring?
MISS JOHNSON: 1874. I beg your pardon, 1873.
THE PRESIDENT: Well there is one document on page 84 - Document No. 1234-PS.
MISS JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor. Yes. Coming to page 84 which is No. 1234-PS, which will be offered as Exhibit 555, we have here under date of 3 April 1942 a letter from the commandant of the Gross-Rosen Concentration Camp to the Reich Main Office of Economic Administration, stating that it has received a report, that is that the concentration camp has received a report that 127 prisoners have received special treatment on 2 April 1942. The prosecution contends that "special treatment" in this case is extermination or euthanasia as it is applied to concentration camps.
We come next to page 89 of the document book, which is NO....
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel; Dr. Froschmann is waiting.
DR. FROSCHMANN: I merely wanted to ask the Prosecution against whom this document 1234-PS is directed? The document to be found on page 87 of the German document book dates back to 5 December, 1944, and I do not know against whom it is really directed.
MISS JOHNSON: Well, your Honor, this document is directed against all the defendants who have been charged with activities in connection with euthanasia.
DR. FROSCHMANN: Mr. President, I should like to reserve the right that I submit an affidavit in answer to document 1234, and affidavit by the defendant Brack.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may submit an affidavit by defendant Brack if it is prepared and presented to the Tribunal promptly.
MISS JOHNSON: We come next to Page 89 of the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, Page 35 is the next page on my document book.
MISS JOHNSON: I believe that runs through, that one document. I don't have any comment on the balance of NO1234. Let me see, we come to Page 89 of the document book, Document NO-1873, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 556. This is a notification from the concentration camp Gross-Rosen to the euthanasia extermination station, Bernburg, that seventy prisoners are being transferred from the concentration camp to the extermination center. This is under the date of 17 March, 1942. 1942 that is dated.
We come now to Page 93 of the document book, Document NO-2253, which is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 557. We have here the affidavit of one Suchomel. He was in the Ministry of Justice during the Hitler regime, and he makes certain statements with respect to the euthanasia program. He states that the parents of children subjected to that program were not asked to give their consent, but rather that euthanasia was applied without any regard to the consent of the parents. He further states that foreigners and Jewish people were included in the program, and he makes special reference to the activities of the Defendants Brandt and Brack.
We come now to Page 99 of the document book, Document No- 3059, which is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 558. This is a document which has been before the Court before. At that time the defense objection to the document was sustained because the document did not contain a proper jurat. We have now obtained affidavit in proper form. The affidavit relates to the question of euthanasia in regard to children.
Your Honor, I see that I have made a mistake here in my comment on Document 3059. This an affidavit which is newly submitted to the Court. It has not been before the Court before. It is an affidavit of Hermann Boehm and has to do with euthanasia, the activity of Defendant Karl Brandt in that Program.
We come now to Page 102 of the document book, NO-896, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 559. This is the affidavit which was presented to the Court at an earlier stage and which was not admitted because it did not contain proper jurat. We have now had it prepared in the proper form. It relates to euthanasia concerning children.
The completes the presentation of rebuttal documents of the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, of course, the Prosecution has a few miscelaneous documents which they will put in rebuttal as they are processed next week. As you will recall I promised I would introduce interrogations of the Defendant Hoven, and those are now being processed. Those will be put in. Of course, we do have a few other miscellaneous documents. At this time the Prosecution does not have any further documents to submit to the Tribunal today.
THE PRESIDENT: There are a good many Prosecution documents for identification.
MR. HARDY: Those we have are now in the stage of being processed, and when we get them together we can introduce them in a more expeditious manner than if we attempt to hobble along here today. We are attempting to make an index of all documents which are marked for identification, and we perhaps can cover that problem in the matter of an hour or two. We will cover that next week.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will announce that it will not hold sessions on the 4th or 5th of July next week, unless some emergency arises which requires the Tribunal to change its mind. The Tribunal will now be in recess until ninethirty o'clock Monday morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 30 June 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, at all, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I, Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all present in the court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of defendant Oberhauser who is absent due to illness. Medical certificate will be presented.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court with the exception of defendant Oberhauser who is absent on account of illness.
Counsel may proceed.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, before calling the two witnesses who will testify as to the activities at Natsweiler, the prosecution desired to know whether or not the defense counsels for Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder have any interest in this interrogation.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant -
THE INTERPRETOR: The switch, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you kindly repeat it to them?
MR. HARDY: I would like to know whether or not counsels for defendants Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder intend to attend the session this morning while I am examining the two witnesses in connection with the activities at Natsweiler or whether or not it is only the defense counsel for Rose who has interest in this matter. They were duly warned or notified on Saturday that these witnesses would be called this morning, your Honor.
DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for defendant Mrugowsky): Mr. President, I shall notify these two defense counsels immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Doctor.
MR. HARDY: In the meantime, perhaps one of the defense counsels has some documents they can put in.
DR. KRAUSS: Mr. President, with the permission of the high Tribunal, I should like to make use of this interval to submit the English translation of three documents to the Tribunal, documents which I submitted into evidence a few days ago.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel, state for the record the defendant for whom you are appearing.
DR. KRAUSS: Dr. Krauss, counsel for the defendant Professor Rostock.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. KRAUSS: The English copies have been provided with the corresponding exhibit numbers, which have been admitted into evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: These English documents available to the Tribunal?
DR. KRAUSS: Thank you, Mr. President, that will be all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has received only three copies of these documents. Is there another file available?
The Tribunal has sufficient of these documents.
DR. FROSCHMANN (Counsel for defendant Brack): Mr. President, may I make a brief urgent application? During the afternoon session of 13 May, page 7581 of the German record, I have stated that after long efforts I had succeeded to find the author of the opinion which was given in connection with Document NO-205 upon which Brack has worked. This witness is now residing in the Russian Zone in Germany. In the meantime, I have been able to correspond with that witness asking him to appear in Nurnberg in order to make an affidavit upon his arrival.
Saturday evening -- that is, on the 28th of June -- I received a telegram according to which this witness, in order to travel to Nurnberg would have to possess a document which is requested by the Russian Military government in Germany in order to able to leave the Russian Zone.
Delay in correspondence with the witness can be explained owing to the well known circumstances which make it impossible for us to send letters to reach the Soviet Zone in time.
I am now submitting to the General Secretary an application which requests the Tribunal to invite this witness to appear here. His name is University Professor Friedrich Holz residing at Halle -- to testify that he had given an expert opinion to brack in the spring of 1941 and that this expert opinion had been converted by Brack's collaborators to Document NO-203. I ask the Tribunal to grant my request and to tell the General Secretary that this document be sent to the witness either directly or through me in order to enable him to leave the Russian Zone and appear in Nurnberg.
I should also like to ask you to permit me after Holz's arrival to submit the affidavit to the Tribunal if such a submission is still possible before the beginning of the final pleas. Unfortunately, I was not able to deal with the matter earlier since only Saturday I received the telegram.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it seems to me that a matter requiring this much difficulty could well have been taken care of since 9 December 1946. This is now June 30, 1947. I don't see but that an affidavit would suffice. He has had ample opportunity to bring this witness here.
THE PRESIDENT: If I understand Dr. Froschmann correctly, he desires simply to submit an affidavit to the Tribunal, not call this man as a witness.
MR. HARDY: That is not my understanding, your Honor. It is my understanding Dr. Froschmann intends to bring this man in as a witness and get clearance papers from the Russian Zone.
DR. FROSCHMANN: Mr. President, I should like Professor Holz to come to Nurnberg in order to get the affidavit from him when he is here and then submit it to the Tribunal. Obviously, that is impossible to deal with by way of correspondence. Since December until April I have tried to get his address. I always receive my replies three or four weeks too late.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Froschmann does not desire to call this doctor as a witness but simply to have him attend at Nurnberg in order to make an affidavit.
DR. FROSCHMANN: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Froschmann, did you hand the Secretary the application which you have made to the Secretary General?
DR. FROSCHMANN: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Froeschmann, the Tribunal will consider this application at the morning recess.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Thank you, Mr. President.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, Dr. Tipp will be in the courtroom immediately.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, perhaps we could call the witness at this time and have him sworn in and go through some of his biographical data.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HARDY: The witness the prosecution wishes to call at this time is a prosecution rebuttal witness, Constantyn Johan Broers.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Constantyn Broers.
CONSTANTYN JOHAN BROERS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SEBRING: Hold up your right hand, please.
MR. HARDY: If your Honor please, this witness will testify in the English language.
JUDGE SEBRING: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give in this issue will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I will speak the truth and only the truth, so help me God.
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask the witness to spell his name.
THE WITNESS: My name is (spelling) B-r-o-e-r-s.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q Witness, what is your full name?
A My full name is Constantyn Johan Broers.
Q When were you born?
A I was born the 29th of September 1913.
Q Where were you born?
A I was born in Pekalongan in Java, in the Dutch East Indies.
Q You are a Dutch citizen?
A I am a Dutch citizen.
Q Would you kindly outline briefly for this Court your educational background?
A My educational background is school in Holland, and afterwards high school and then university; first year in Batavia in the medical high school and afterwards University of Utrecht where I studied biology and I finished my studies.
Q When did you finish your studies at the University of Utrecht?
A When I came back in 1945 from concentration camp Dachau.
Q Prior to the war had you finished a substantial amount of your study period at the University of Utrecht?
A Before the war you mean?
Q Before the war, yes.
A Yes, I only finished my studies when I came back.
Q I see. What are you doing at the present time?
AAt the present time I am an assistant of the University of Utrecht.
Q In what capacity?
A The capacity of an anatomical assistant on the medical and anatomical laboratory.
Q Witness, during the course of this interrogation inasmuch as we are both speaking in the English language, if you will kindly hesitate for a moment before you answer my question it will be helpful to the German interpreter and the court reporters.
A Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel. Dr. Tipp, does the Tribunal understand that at this session you are acting as counsel for defendants Becker-Freyseng and Schroeder?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The questions propounded to the witness before your arrival were simply as to his age and his educational qualifications and the fact that he is a Dutch citizen.
DR. TIPP: Thank you, Mr. President.
Q (By Mr. Hardy) Now, Mr. Broers, would you kindly tell the Court when you were first arrested by the Gestapo and for what reason?
A I was first arrested by the Gestapo on the 21st of July 1942 for underground activity and spy work.
Q For whom were you performing this underground activity and spy work?
A This underground activity I was performing for the so-called O.D., Orde Dienst. That was a Dutch underground organization. And the spy work I was performing for the I.D., the Inlichtingen Dienst. That was an organization formed for the English intelligence.
Q Witness, were you ever arrested or in the custody of the police for any crime prior to this arrest by the Gestapo in July, 1942?
A No, sir.
Q Now, after your arrest in July 1942, would you kindly tell the Tribunal briefly what happened to you?
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, I think the Tribunal would like to know whether or not this man was tried, and if so, by what sort of court.
MR. HARDY: That's what this question comprises, Your Honor.
A When I was arrested on the 21st of July, I was brought to the prison of Schereningen in Holland and there I was interrogated about my spy work and that lasted about eleven days. Then I was, without a trial, condemned to death and they told me I shall be shot down the next morning, but the next morning they brought me before one of the high ranking officers of the S.D. and he said to me that it was an error and I should forget it. Then afterwards I was interrogated for the O.D. case and after five months transported to the prison of Haren, also in Holland, and in Haren I was interrogated for the case of the I.D., spy work case, and a short time afterwards in Haren we got a trial for the O.D. case.
After five months in Haren I was transported to Utrecht and in Utrecht I had the trial for the spy work case. In these two trials I was detached. The Germans called that -- I don't remember the name -- "Abtrennung", I was Abtrennung and then after five months in Utrecht they transported me to Armersfoerth, and in Armersfoerth I only was about three weeks and then became transported to Natzweiler.
Q Well, now, witness, after you had been tried twice for spying and for other underground activities, was sentence passed in your case?
A No, there was no sentence. The only two possibilities were sentence to death or Abtrennung. You could be sentenced to death or you could be detached from the process. You would be Abtrennung.
Q You mean acquitted?
AAcquitted, yes.
Q And were you then acquitted after these two trials?
A Yes, sir.
Q Well, then, for what reasons were you sent to the concentration camp Natzweiler?
A I was there with about 150 other people and these people were all of these two trials, and we were sent to Germany as "Nacht und Nebel Haeftlinge" and Natzweiler was a camp established, I believe, especially for "Nacht und Nebel Haeftlinge."
Q When did you arrive at the concentration camp Natzweiler?
A I arrived at the end of October, 1943.
Q And how long did you remain in the Natzweiler concentration camp?
A Until the 4th of September 1944.
Q And then where did you go?
AAnd then we were transported to the concentration camp Dachau.
Q And you stayed there until the liberation?
A Yes, sir.
Q Will you kindly tell the Tribunal what your duties were when you first arrived at the concentration camp Natzweiler?
AAt first, the first time for about the first three weeks about, I had my work in heavy command, called "strassenbau".
INTERPRETER RAMLER: Streetbuilding.
A (Cont'd) And then I became ill and I came to the so-called "Schonung". Schonung was a barrack where we could do light work until we would be good enough to again do the hard work, and then I made a portrait of one of the people there and so they saw that I was a draftsman and I got a job as the official draftsman of the Commander, "Schriftenmaler der Kommandantur".
Q Well then, at any time did you work in the camp hospital?
A Yes, that came afterwards. That was the end of April or the beginning of May, 1944, that I was called into the hospital by the chief physician, SS physician of the camp, Dr. Platzer, and he asked me, "You are a biologist", and he said, "Can you do some bacteriological work?" I answered him, "I am a comparative anatomist, but when you give me literature and I have some time to work in, I can do the work." So he said, "From now on you are an assistant of the hospital." And from other people, prisoners of the camp, I heard that I was now an assistant of Dr. Hagen and that Dr. Hagen would do experimental work about typhus and there should be built a laboratory for me, but it was at that time that the Americans already landed and came nearer and nearer and so I think Professor Hagen didn't like to make some experiments in a concentration camp with human beings, and so I never saw in this quality as an assistant of Professor Hagen, I never saw him. But while I was an anatomist, Dr. Bogartz - Georges Bogartz -
Q Just a moment, witness, before you go into that subject. In summation then in April or May of the year 1944 you became an assistant in the camp hospital?
A Yes sir.
Q And it was your understanding that you were to work as an assistant to Dr. Haagen?
A Yes sir.
Q But, you never did in fact work as assistant to Dr. Haagen?
A No sir.
Q Did Dr. Haagen ever appear at the camp?
A Yes sir.
Q But you never talked to him?
A No sir.
Q You don't know whether he was performing any work in the camp after May 1944?
A Yes sir, there was many gossips about that in the camp.
Q But, from your own knowledge you don't know that he was working with typhus?
A No sir, not exactly.
Q What do you know from hearsay?
A From hearsay that he was experimenting with typhus and used for that purpose the prisoners of the camp and he used the gypsies for that, they said.
Q Where did you hear that?
A I heard that in the hospital from the camp, the prisoner physician, and from the prisoner nurses. They are the people who told me that.
Q And that was after May 1944 that Haagen was supposedly conducting this work?
A Yes sir. I don't know that exactly for I should be his assistant but I never saw him in this quality so when he should have worked afterwards I think I should act as his assistant.