Q Well, 3 people were carried out, you said.
A Yes.
Q Do yon know their names?
A No.
Q Did anybody die during the experiment, as far as you know? Could you say Meier died, for example?
A No.
Q Then, after the experiment was over, you worked on a farm?
A Yes.
Q That was in September - harvest?
A Yes.
Q Was that clean work or was that dirty work?
A That was dirty work.
Q One got dirty easily?
A Yes.
Q. And where did you get after you left that farm? You had a phlegmone after this dirty work...
A Yes.
Q And then where did you go?
A Then I went to Augsburg.
Q To the Messerschmidt Works.
A Yes.
Q What were you there in the Messerschmidt Works?
A I was a laborer.
Q No, you were more. Just think.
A No, I was nothing. I was a common laborer. I was just a prisoner when I worked for Messerschmidt. My leg was still crooked when they sent me away from Dachau.
Q Weren't you the foreman there?
A No.
Q What are you living on now?
A I am a dealer in textiles and musical instruments.
Q Can you read and write?
A Yes.
Q Do you like to read the newspaper?
A No.
Q Do you have a radio?
A Yes.
Q At the beginning of this trial why didn't you come here and volunteer as a witness?
A I didn't hear about it.
Q But you have a radio!
A Yes.
Q Aren't you in the Care Station?
A Yes?
Q Didn't they talk about the experiments in Dachau?
A No. If I had known about it I would have come here immediately.
Q Didn't you ever beat anybody in Auschwitz?
A No. I can swear to that.
Q Now another question -- the witness, Massion....
A I don't know him.
Q He was a soldier, a young fellow from the Rhineland.
A In Auschwitz?
Q No, no. We are talking about Professor Beiglboeck's station.
A Yes.
Q He was a witness; his name was Massion - a young Luftwaffe soldier.
A Yes.
Q Do you remember him?
A Did he wear glasses?
Q No, a student from the Rhineland.
A I don't know. I only knew 2 -- the doctor from the Luftwaffe... there was an older man from the Luftwaffe and a younger man, with glasses. There was something wrong with his eyes.
Q Witness, a fellow named Pillwein, Fritz. Do you remember him? He was a nurse; he gave aid and food and weighed the people.
A Yes.
Q He was from Vienna?
A Yes, he was from Vienna.
Q Was he a nice fellow?
A Yes, he was a very good man.
Q Do you consider him trustworthy?
A Yes.
Q Then there was a Dr. Lesse there; he made the blood tests, etc.
A Yes.
Q Was he a nice fellow?
A From the Luftwaffe?
Q Yes, he was from the Luftwaffe.
AA big tall fellow?
Q Was he a nice fellow?
A Well, what do you mean -- nice?
Q I am just asking you, do you consider him trustworthy?
A No.
Q How about Worlicek?
A I don't know him.
Q He was from Vienna too; he helped Pillwein.
A I don't remember that.
Q Did this Pillwein treat you well?
A Yes.
Q Now I have to tell you that these witnesses, so there is no mistake -- the witness Worlicek said that the people were treated well outside of the experiment and then I should like the Prosecutor to read what the witness Laubinger said ... Well, that is not important...they all said that the Professor treated the experimental subjects well.
A No!
Q Well, are all these people lying then?
A How could the doctor from the Luftwaffe treat us well?
Q This doctor...
A What doctor?
Q Dr. Bieglboeck.
A No, he did not treat us well.
Q All right. Let us go on. Do you smoke a great deal?
A Yes, I used to smoke.
Q Did you smoke in the camp?
A Yes.
Q Was it easy to get cigarettes there?
A No.
Q In 1944 was it easy to get cigarettes anywhere in Germany outside of the camp?
A No.
Q Then cigarettes were very valuable?
A Yes.
Q Did you often sell or trade your food for cigarettes?
A No.
Q Did the professor give cigarettes to the patients?
A Yes.
Q How many?
A Two or three.
Q And the people who did the experiment well, got more?
A I don't know.
Q Well, think If Laubinger knew about it you must know about it.
A No I don't know.
Q Well, then you were in the experiment?
A Yes.
Q Your numbers 23?
A Yes.
Q Can it be that from the 22nd to the 30th of August 1944 you were in the experiment? That is 9 day -- 8½ days -- is that right, when you were directly in the experiment?
A The water experiments and the liver puncture and so on lasted a week or two.
Q Don't evade me -- when you yourself were drinking the water under supervision.
A I don't remember.
Q But think! It is important.
A I don't remember.
Q Why don't you remember? Do you want to make it more days or don't you want to tall the truth?
A No. I am telling the truth.
Q Well, I will show you a chart which shows that you were in the experiment 9 days at the most.
A No, it was longer.
Q Do you know what your weight was at the beginning?
A No.
Q At the end?
A No.
Q Were you ever photographed?
A Yes.
Q When you were in bed?
A On a stretcher in the courtyard we were photographed.
Q Was that at the beginning, the end, the middle, or when?
AAt the end of the experiment.
Q I am afraid I don't have the photographs with me but we don't need them. At the end of the experiment you were photographed?
A I don't remember exactly.
Q Now I asked you whether you were photographed and you said it was at the end.
A Yes.
Q All right. Now I would like to tell me whether you are the one with the No. 23 here.
A Yes.
Q First look at the picture.
A Here I am. (Indicating on photograph)
Q That is right? That is you?
A Here, in these two pictures.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be seated. Sit down, witness. BY DR. STEINBAUER:
Q Witness, these pictures were taken just before the end of the experiment?
A Yes.
Q And how did the experiment and in your case -- do you remember?
A I don't remember what day it was.
Q I asked you how, and were you given water to drink, or milk?
A No.
Q Well, what happened?
A We had to drink salt water.
Q Yes, but when that stopped?
A Well, when the experiment was finished, then we got water.
Q Well, did the professor give you an injection?
AAt the end he gave me a long bottle; it was water; he tied it up at the top and let it go into my arm.
Q That is what I wanted to know. Then after that did you feel better?
A No.
Q And it is not true if the professor says that it was almost a miracle how you revived and were able to walk around again?
A No. I did not jump nor did I run around when the experiment was finished. Prisoners had to help each other to walk.
Q Witness, weren't you photographed after you got this injection?
A I don't remember.
Q Well, think. Don't just say you don't know, but think it over. If you need time just think it over.
A No. I don't remember.
Q Now when these experiments were going on did you swindle?
A No, no, never.
Q You never drank any water?
A No.
Q We had a famous professor from America, here and he found out exactly who drank water, and when.
A I never drank any water. We were so exhausted we could not even get up and we were under guard.
Q You say you never drank water.
A No.
Q Then it is not possible that on 3 days -- on the 24th, the 25th and the 29th you certainly drank water and on the 28th probably?
A I did not drink any water during this experiment.
Q Didn't you throw away your urine?
A No, the doctor from the Luftwaffe examined the urine and he said, "Hollenrainer,..."
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the translation has not been coming through.
Q Witness, did you throw away your urine?
A No.
Q How much of this water did you drink -- this yellow water?
A That was about the size of mug.
Q Could it have been half a litter?
A Yes.
Q And it had to be elimated, too. If it is taken into the body it has to be eliminated.
A Yes.
Q Well, how does it happen that on 2 days you had less urine than you drank, where otherwise you had exactly the same value? It is a very unimportant thing -- it would be much nicer...make a much better impression, if you tell the truth. The other gypsies admitted that they swindled. That you should be the only one...
A I didn't do anything; I didn't drink any water; I didn't eat anything.
Q And you did not throw away any urine?
A No.
Q Well, when you were so weak after the experiment and came back to your barracks, which barrack did you come to?
A Block 22.
Q 22. Weren't there other gypsies there too? Room 4, I think?
A I don't remember. And it is not important.
Q Did you meet Laubinger there?
A Yes.
Q Mettbach?
A No. No Mettbach.
Q Witness, I will have you confronted with Mettbach who will say that he was with you.
A When the experiment was finished he was with me but he went away to Mauthausen.
Q Witness, I am asking you whether Mettbach was in the room in Block 22 with you?
A I don't remember.
Q You don't remember -- that is something different. Do you consider it possible that he was there?
A I don't know.
Q Were there people who repeated the experiment?
A I don't know that either.
Q If a gypsy was lying on the ground, wouldn't you have helped him, or wouldn't the Frenchmen have helped him?
A The doctor from the Luftwaffe took the patients down on a stretcher and made the liver puncture; some of them in their beds, too.
Q. I am asking you if a person became mad or was writhing on the ground wouldn't any of his comrades have helped him?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. Because they couldn't walk.
Q. Because you were weak?
A. Yes, we were weak.
Q. But the Frenchmen weren't so weak?
A. I don't know.
Q. They were next door?
A. The Frenchmen were there. They were in the other room.
Q. How far away was the other room?
A. In the same block on the right.
Q. There was just a door between them?
A. Yes.
Q. Were all the gypsies in the experiment at the same time or were there some that weren't in the experiment?
A. They were all in the experiment except Ernst Mettbach.
Q. You didn't understand me. I am sorry, witness. I am asking you whether all 44 of them drank sea water at the same time, or whether one group was thirsting and the others were going for a walk?
A. No, there were three kinds of water, white water and yellow water, and three groups, about 13 men in each group and 14 in one.
Q. That is what I wanted to know. The group not in the experiment did they eat in the room or out of the room?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, witness, you were there?
A. How should I know. When I was drinking seawater we didn't get anything to eat.
Q. What about the others?
A. We were all in the block. We couldn't walk.
Q. Did some people have to repeat the experiment?
A. Yes, the people who drank the water or ate some bread. Then the doctor from the Luftwaffe would get some sea water.
Q. Yes, we have already heard that. Do you know that some people had what they called an "escape point"?
A. I don't know.
Q. Were you there when the station was dissolved and the apparatus was packed up? Did you help?
A. No.
Q. Do you know whether the professor tried to help the prisoners get some privilege, or to have people released from the Wehrmacht? Did you hear anything about that?
A. No.
Q. Didn't he promise that?
A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know anything -- do you suffer from a weak memory?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, will you please propound your questions more slowly. The question and answer are too fast for the interpreters.
Witness, will you speak more slowly and before answering counsel's questions wait a moment to let the interpreters translate counsel's questions.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
Q. Witness, you have already told us about the cigarettes. Do you know whether the professor did anything else for the experimental subjects, for example, that members of the Wehrmacht were to be released?
A. I don't know.
Q. Do you remember some criminals, that is, criminal police, that came and inquired?
A. No, I know nothing about that.
Q. Neither do I. Do you know that Laubinger came to the Quartermaster's office?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. He was in the same room with you, 22?
A. Yes, when the experiments were finished. I was on the farm for about a week and then had a phlegmone and was then taken to the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I must insist that you wait until the witness has finished his answer and then propound your next question, so that it can be translated. And witness, you must delay your answer until the Question propounded by counsel has been translated.
Q. Witness, do you know whether in the winter of 1944 or in the spring of 1945 there was a big famine in the camp?
A. I don't know anything about that.
Q. Did you ever hear anything about it?
A. No.
Q. And that many gypsies died then, you didn't hear that?
A. In Dachau?
Q. Yes, in Dachau.
A. No.
Q. Did you meet any of these 44 people?
A. No, there were not many. When the experiments were finished, many gypsies were sent to other concentration camps. I was in the hospital then.
Q. And you weren't in any malaria experiment?
A. No.
Q. Or typhoid experiment?
A. No, typhoid and malaria was in Auschwitz. A lot of gypsies had that in Auschwitz. Dead people were stacked like flour sacks and then taken away by trucks to the crematorium. Gypsies and Jews weren't worth anything in the camp.
DR. STEINBAUER: In the meantime, Mr. President, I have obtained the excerpt from the criminal record, which is only in German. I shall have it translated and offer it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: From that record you might ask the witness concerning the statements on the record which you have.
MR. HARDY: May I see the record to check its authenticity? Will the German interpreters kindly look at this for me to check its authenticity?
Q. Witness, I don't want to bother you with the question, but do you think it possible you had nine convictions?
A. I don't remember. I was a deserter and they betrayed me when I came to Auschwitz.
DR. STEINBAUER: I have no further Questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions to this witness by defense counsel?
DR. GAWLIK: Gawlik for Hoven.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, on what matters do you desire to examine this witness?
DR. GAWLIK: About the general treatment of Jews in the concentration camp.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see the relevancy of that matter concerning your client.
DR. GAWLIK: In order to prove the attitude of Dr. Hoven toward the Jews.
MR. HARDY: I think that is a matter of chronology, the attitude toward the Jews in this matter, taking into consideration the record of the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you going to ask the witness whether or not he knows Hoven?
DR. GAWLIK: No.
THE PRESIDENT: I see no materiality concerning the case of Dr. Hoven in the examination of this witness.
DR. GAWLIK: For my case I consider it material for my closing brief, but if the Tribunal does not think the questions necessary then I will dispense with them.
THE PRESIDENT: I see no pertinency of the questions to your defense.
DR. GAWLIK: I consider it pertinent to prove the good reputation and character of the defendant Dr. Hoven and to prove that it is unlikely that he committed the offenses with which he is charged.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest, counsel, if you contend that this witness knew Dr. Hoven, then it would be a different question, but you said you made no such contention.
DR. GAWLIK: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I see nothing to which he can testify that would be pertinent to Dr. Hoven's defense.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other questions by defense counsel representing clients by whom this witness may be properly examined?
MR. HARDY: I have nothing further.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness Hoellenreiner is excused from the witness stand to be reconducted to his confinement in the prison.
The Secretary of the Tribunal - I see the Secretary is now absent.
MR. HARDY: The defense counsel have some documents. I think they might well introduce them now. I think I will be in a position at 1:30 to start with documents for identification.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, Dr. Sauter for defendants Blome and Ruff.
I have heard that yesterday the Tribunal asked for a list of documents which are still to be offered by the defense. This morning I asked my colleagues how many documents they still have to offer, and I have drawn up a list which I now hand to the Tribunal so that the Tribunal will be informed. I shall hand you a list in a moment. On the right side I have always indicated whether these documents are in the hands of the Translation Branch, or whether they have not yet been handed in. You will be able to get a picture from this list. Unfortunately I have this list only in German, as there was not enough time to have it translated. I am sure, however, you will be able to understand the list anyhow.
THE PRESIDENT: I am surprised that defense counsel have documents which they have not yet handed to translation. I understood all such documents were in the hands of the translation department some time ago.
The Tribunal has received the list of the documents referred to by counsel.
DR. SAUTER: And then, Mr. President, may I make another remark? I have made a listing on a point, which the President brought up for discussion about the approximate number of pages of the closing briefs and the final pleas, insofar as they have not yet been translated. I have made this listing. Just a moment, perhaps I can give the court some copies of it.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, from looking at this list concerning the supplement documents -- wait a minute, I can see we only have to deal with the supplemental documents in the case of Schroeder, Mrugowsky, Sievers and Brack, combined with all the others are merely miscellaneous documents and it seems to me Bracks', Schroeders', Sievers', Mrugowskys' attorney should be able to present their documents today. They certainly must have had their documents in more than a week ago, particularly the defendants Brack, Sievers, and Mrugowsky inasmuch as their cases were completed weeks ago.
DR. SAUTER: The delay with many documents can be explained by the fact that the Prosecution has offered now evidence against various defendants through the cases has long been completed. For example, against the defendant Dr. Blome, whose case has been finished for months, more documents were offered last week by the Prosecution. In this case, I have had no opportunity to call witnesses. I have made a statement on this new evidence and on an important point I have taken an affidavit of Dr. Blome today. I want this affidavit, which was taken, to be translated. It was not possible to do that earlier and it is possibly the same with other defense counsel. These documents, which are still missing, are documents dealing with these recent charges raised by the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, you see the great difficulty has been here, the Prosecution, in an endeavor to be cooperative with the Tribunal and defense counsel, has introduced rebuttal evidence out of order.
We have done that to shorten the number of days and to expedite the closing of the trial. In so doing, the defense counsel picked up rebuttal evidence and tried to have new affidavit made.
I think a lawyer like Dr. Sauter who went through the whole I.M.T. and is far more familiar with the procedure of the Tribunal is trying to offer further evidence in rebuttal to the Prosecution's rebuttal evidence. We will never have the trial close if all of this evidence is permitted today.
THE PRESIDENT: There is merit in what the Prosecution has said. The Prosecution introduces evidence, the defense introduces evidence, the prosecution then introduces evidence in rebuttal and then rebuttal evidence is introduced by the defense. At the conclusion of the defense's rebuttal, the case is ended.
The prosecution in order to expedite the trial introduced some evidence out of order. Such evidence is not subject to defendant's rebuttal, it entitles them to bring in further evidence, but the case closes with the presentation of the defendant's rebuttal evidence. If the evidence here had been introduced in an orderly manner, it would be ended. If, of course, the prosecution in rebuttal, after introducing new evidence that is not in rebuttal in what the defense's contention is, the defense has an opportunity to introduce evidence.
Mr. HARDY: May I correct you, Your Honor, you erroneously said defendant's rebuttal when you mean prosecution rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, after receiving other evidence, which is not rebuttal or in explanation of evidence introduced by the defense that the new evidence will be excluded then there is no necessity and it might be excluded on objection. If there are no objections, it would go in. If it was admitted in evidence then the defense might answer. If the Prosecution offers the objection, it may open the door for the defendant to introduce other evidence to deny it. That would be a matter to be decided by the Tribunal and the Court trying the case as circumstances might arise.
Dr. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I saw something which is important for myself and which also goes more or less for all my colleagues. The Prosecution just said that Dr. Sauter had been in the I.M.T. and know the procedure very well. Now, I must say we learned something new in this field in many respects. For example, that the Prosecution on the last day of the case can bring new witnesses that is something new for us. I, as defense counsel, if it is a fair trial, demand that if such new evidence is brought in at the last moment, I am given an opportunity to answer it.
I should like to show you by a practical example what I mean. During the whole trial, which has been going on for eight months, the Prosecution did not say a single word against the defendant Dr. Blome in connection with typhus. Then it would have been their right to charge the defendant Dr. Blome in this connection, but for eight months they did not do so and now at the last moment, I believe it was last Friday, a document was submitted which suddenly charges the defendant Dr. Blome with typhus experiments. In his whole life he heard nothing about them and during the whole trial nothing was said about them.
In the interests of a fair trial, the Prosecution cannot say I am now in rebuttal and I think I have a right to demand that when such a new charge is raised, I have a right to answer it and if this document is given to me on Friday, I am not a magician, I cannot offer the affidavit of the Defendant Dr. Blome months ago. That is apparently ture of many other cases of the other defense counsel. Mr. President, I ask the Tribunal to have understanding for this affidavit.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, may I ask the defense counsel one question? Is the Defendant Blome charged in the indictment with typhus? No, is the answer. No further questions.
DR. SAUTER: Then I would like to ask the Prosecutor why, I think it was last Friday, he submitted a document which connects the defendant Blome with typhus experiments?
Mr. HARDY: The defendant Blome is not charged in the indictment with typhus, the evidence will show that the Prosecution definitely entertains no charge against Defendant Blome with typhus. That is correct.
It seems to me that defense counsel can read the record and see which evidence they can well ignore. I think in a question like this document, they would do well to ignore it. The affidavit shows the Tribunal the entire procedure, they held conferences, how typhus experiments were started.
It seems at this last date the document at least did show Dr. Blome was connected with typhus.
THE PRESIDENT: You introduced no official evidence to show that the defendant Blome was charged with typhus experiments?
Mr. HARDY: I did not introduce it, Your Honor, and this is the first time the Document was introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter of evidence is covered by Ordnance No. 7, which allows the Tribunal in its discretion to allow rebuttal on both sides. The situation is not altogether fortunate, but I would like to say defendants in preparing these documents they were informed they must get in their documents to the Translation center. I don't know how many documents are coming out. The translation authorities said the documents would be turned out every day beginning with yesterday, today and tomorrow. I don't know if the defense received any documents or not.
I notice defendant Mrugowsky has put in 19 documents, put them in on the 27th day of June -- just a few days since. Have any defense counsel further documents to introduce? We have some here, I notice.
Dr. SAUTER: Mr. President, may I add something? In addition to the one list, which I gave you about the documents, which are not ready yet, I have a second list which I also handed to you, showing approximately the number of pages of the closing briefs and final pleas, insofar as they are not yet translated.
On the left side, I have the name of the defendant and defense counsel; in the middle, I have a column showing whether these closing briefs and pleas have been handed in for translation yet or not, or whether this translation is finished. On the right side, I have the number of pages still to be translated. The majority of these closing briefs and pleas are in the hands of the translating branch. I am giving you this list so that the President will have a picture of how much material still has to be translated.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the number of pages shown in the right hand column simply indicates the number of pages not yet translated; is that correct?
Dr. SAUTER: Yes, the number of pages not yet translated. On those that are translated, I simply made a line and dash on the right and that is indicated in the center column. The figures on the right are only those which are still to be translated, which have not yet come back from the Translation Branch. The President can see how much work there has to be done by the Translation Branch and it will be easier for the President to reach his dispositions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I understand. We appreciate this list. Of course, the documents which must be introduced before the close of the evidence are the matters of first importance. The briefs will be done as soon as the documents which are to be referred in evidence are ready. I shall endeavor during the noon recess to ascertain how the translation department is proceeding.
The Secretary will file for the record the certificate concerning defendant Oberhauser who is ill.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 1 July 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL (consel for the defendants Gebhardt and Fischer): Mr. President, on last Saturday in connection with Document Book 18, the Prosecution offered an affidavit of the camp commandant Suhren. This is NO-3648, Exhibit 350. I objected to the admission of this document. The court overruled, my objection but said that to refute these statements I could submit an affidavit from the Defendant Karl Gebhardt. I have obtained this affidavit in the meantime, and this morning I sent four copies of it to the Translation Branch. I should like to offer this as Gebhardt Exhibit 55. It is Document 47.
THE PRESIDENT: What number did you wish to be assigned to this exhibit, Counsel?
DR. SEIDL: Gebhardt 45. I have no translation of this document yet, Mr. President, but I am in a position to give the Tribunal four copies in German so that the document number can be entered.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution, are you at all familiar with the document?
MR. HARDY: No, I am not familiar with the document, your Honor; however, it is a document of the Defendant Gebhardt. It is sworn to, and as a matter of convenience and expeditiousness, I will not object to it if an English copy is filed with us in due course.
THE PRESIDENT: How long is the affidavit, Counsel?
DR. SEIDL: Nine pages, but it is written widely spaced.
MR. HARDY: Of course, Your Honor, this is an answer to document which I consider to be true rebuttal evidence. The Defendant has taken the stand, and in tho testimony of the defense he has given his opinion as to the status of the girls, and the affidavit of Fritz Suhren gives the opinion of the camp commandant at that time as to the status of the inmates in the camp and other particulars which were testified to by the Defendant Gebhardt.