Q. Did you over see him again?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I went to Berlin the beginning of January, by order. I did not see him again
Q. Would it have been important now, doctor, to find out whether this man's arm, if indeed useless it was, became more or less useless after removal of the scapula?
A. Basically I have to affirm that question. It would be right, in order to answer the entire question I have to say that we had an opportunity in our clinic to observe such conditions beforehand.
Q. Well, do you know whether or not the victim was killed after the removal of his scapula?
A. I do not know that.
Q. What was the name of the patient into whom the scapula, which was removed from this prisoner, was transplanted at Hohenlychen?
A. His name was Ladisch.
Q. Who was he?
A. He was a student, in his early 20s.
Q. Was he an SS man or a private patient?
A. He was a private patient.
Q. Now, doctor Gebhardt, on direct examination and in the crossexamination, stated that the reason for inserting the scapula into the patient Ladisch was the fact that this patient was, and I quote, "endangered by cancer" Do you think that the implantation of a bone in any way has any curative effect on cancer, such as Gebhardt suggested in his deliberately misleading statement, or could the implantation of this bone at best have had merely a plastic effect?
A. Mr. Hardy, you expect me to critically define myself to a testimony which was made by my former chief physician and by my medical teacher. I ask you to consider that and I want to tell you the following. The patient, Ladisch, had a swelling which obviously looked malignant. It was in the area of the shoulder bone. He was the subject of long care and many examinations. I saw 11, March-A-JP-21-3-Lesser (Int.
Ramler) a number of preparations for these examinations.
It was extremely difficult to decide what the actual progress was.
Q. Doctor, you are somewhat of an expert on cancer research, aren't you? As I recall, in your affidavit you said "Since I succeeded in scientific discoveries of the highest practical importance, that is, the solution of the cancer problem and its therapy, I have not communicated this fact to Professor Gebhardt and have not published this work, in order not to be or ordered a gain to carry out experiments.
INTERPRETER: Would you repeat that please? It did not come through in German.
Q. You were somewhat of an expert on concern research, weren't you?
A. I cannot affirm th t just like that. I endeavored to work in that field. That was on the basis of my pathological and anatomical experience, on the basis of chem calwork, an on the basis of experience in tho field of xRay and adio therapy.
Q. You are aware aren't you, Dr. Fischer, that Professor Gebhardt was deliberately talking nonsense when he suggested that the transplantation of the scapula had anything to do with reducing the danger of cancer? At best it was a very long short that it might replace a bone destroyed by cancer. From your knowledge you know, of course, that the cancer could have been removed probably more completely if this attempted transplantation had not been carried out, is that right?
A. No, that question cannot be formulated in that manner. The surgical therapy, and I want to make that clear in order to distinguished from any other kind of therapy, is always part of a mutilating operation, distinguishing mutilating operation from a rehabilitating operation. The form of surgical therapy of cancer consists of an operation of tho diseased tissue and the area around it from which it had to be assumed that it would also be the place of a new infection; all these areas would have to be removed. The conceptions about a therapy which would go beyond this mutilating operation, differ. At all times concepts and schools existed which endeavored on the one side to connect the mutilating operation with a rehabilitating operation in the case of cancer.
That is the concept which was often presented in the school of Lexer, mostly in the case of a swelling which is just on the borderline of malignacy, as was the case here. In text books it is quite easy to decide what is malignant and what is not, but in reality the case is different. In the case of Ladisch, the borderline had just been reached, and a decision was extremely difficult. I am convinced that my medical teacher and chief, Gebhardt, had the intention at that time to just coordinate the mutilating operation with a rehabilitating operation, with the concept, perhaps under the influence of Stumpfegger, that the tissue from a healthy bone might, in certain sense, have a therapeutical effect. With reference to my last sentence, I must say that I am only assuming that.
Q Be that as it may, Doctor, you do know that that transplantation didn't even have a plastic effect on the patient Ladicz, don't you?
AAs long as I was in Hohenlychen and saw the patient Ladicz before me, I could gain no final picture about the result of the operation.
Q Is it not true, Dr. Fischer, that while autoplastic transplantations, that is transplantation of bone from one bone of the patient to another bone of the same patient, if carried out carefully are successfully, that heteroplastic or homeoplastic transplantation, as Dr. Gebhardt called it during cross examination, that is, transplantation of bone from one individual to another individual, usually fails, according to all existing knowledge derived from experience on animals as well as human beings?
A Mr. Prosecutor, the question didn't come through as a question. I don't know what the subject of your real question is.
Q I have stated, Dr. Fischer, is it true or isn't it true, that a transplantation of a bone from one individual to another individual usually fails according to all existing knowledge derived from experiments in animals as well as human beings?
A I believe that lately there has been an essential change. It is correct that in the middle of the twenties, as for a one still used the method of bone transplantation, one completely turned toward autoplastical transplantation. That was the method which was particularly cultivated at. Hohenlychen. As I had to assume, my chief had the concept that other ways were possible too. He thought that one of these ways was the homeoplastical transplantation, that is the transplantation from one human being to another. At least I had to think that Professor Gebhardt considered that opportunity and perhaps thought that this was a way of some future development in rehabilitation surgery.
Q Well, now, in your opinion, should this whole question of heteroplastic or homeoplastic transplantation, in contrast to autoplastic transplantation, that if a reinvestigation of this old settled problem, that homeoplastic transplantations were unsuccessful, was it indicated at all, wouldn't you think it would first be advisable to re-investigate this problem in animals before depriving human beings perhaps of their limbs?
A I am not quite clear where your emphasis lies in putting that question. The question of autoplastical transplantation cannot be solved in that manner which you like to assume, Mr. Prosecutor; and as to the question of homeoplastical transplantation, that is the transplantation from one individual to another, I should like to tell you that in the lower series of animals homeoplastic transplantation is possible.
Q Well, Doctor, could all of these bone operations including the transplantation experiments and the removal of the shoulder blade from the concentration camp prisoners, and where limbs or parts of limbs may have been removed in connection with these experiments, could all of these experiments which we are grouping together under the name of "transplantation experiment have been carried out, if Gebhardt had not approved?
A I must answer this question in its various parts. I don't know the transplantation of entire limbs; How far and to what extent Gebhardt exercised an influence over Stumpfecker, I cannot tell you, since I did not converse with either of them, and since I am not in a position to judge the relations between Prof. Stumpfegger and Dr. Gebhardt and analyze them. I can only say that the mobilization of the shoulder blade would not have been possible if it had not been carried out by strict and unambiguous order of Professor Gebhardt.
Q In connection with these experiments, do you think Gebhardt could have prevented them if he had wanted to do so?
A Your question goes beyond my competency of answering it. The power of Gebhardt is based on a relation and attitude towards Himmler and Hitler. I can say nothing about that since I never saw Hitler at all, and since I only saw Himmler on a few occasions of visits to Hohenlychen, but never spoke with him. Since the core of the question is about the relations of Gebhardt and Himmler, and since I know nothing about that of my own knowledge I am not in a position to answer the question as you put it.
Q Did Stumpfecker have any rank in the SS or any military organization?
A Stumpfecker was finally Obersturmbannfuehrer of the Waffer-SS.
Q And Gebhardt was Gruppenfuehrer?
A Yes, Gebhardt was Gruppenfuehrer.
Q Doctor, is it important in all bone operations to observe asepsis capillae because of the fact that an infection of the bone marrow leads to osteomylitis?
A I don't think that was translated properly. You probably mean asepsis.
Q I said asepsis, yes.
A The asepsis the basic request for a plastic operation on the bone.
Q Well, now, do you know, Dr. Fischer, that the prisoner, Helena Teasakka, one of the Polish girls, is still severely ill from a crippling osteomylitis ever since the bone operation was performed in the summer of 1943, do you know that?
A No, I don't know that, Mr. Prosecutor, and I must ask you how should I know that?
Q For your information, Doctor, we were unable to transport her he from Warsaw, because of her condition and the crippling osteomylitis which she is now going through. Did you ever examine her?
A No.
Q Now, was a bunker, not the hospital barracks, or the operating room, but was the bunker a suitable place to perform aseptic operations?
A I don't know the bunker, and as far as I am informed there was no bunker at the hospital barracks of the camp. I should like to tell you once more that I know of no operations performed in the bunker. As far as I am informed, on the basis of the indictment such operations were carried out in August 1943. During that time I was serving with a Division as a physician there.
Q I will ask you a technical question in that regard as an expert, as a physician: One of the Polish girls here testified she was operated on the fifth time in the bunker; was it not a foregone conclusion that a patient operated on under such conditions would develop infection?
A May I ask you for the name of the patient, was it Miss Karoleska?
Q Frankly, Doctor, I can't remember offhand. We will pass over that At this meeting in Berlin in May 1943, in which you and Gebhardt reported the results of your experiments was Handloser there?
A Professor Handloser was present, yes.
Q Was Brandt there? Karl Brandt?
A Yes.
Q Was Dr. Leonardo Conti there.
A Yes, he was present.
Q They were sitting in the front row, were they not?
A Yes, these three gentlemen sat in the front row, yes.
Q Brandt was in the middle, wasn't he?
A Yes.
Q Was Dr. Rostock there?
A Yes, Professor Rostock was present too.
Q Were any of the other defendants there?
A Dr. Poppendick was there too.
Q Did you and Dr. Gebhardt take along Dr. Oberhauser with you, so she could sec some of the fruits of her work, or was she absent?
A Dr. Oberhauser was not there.
Q Now, you testified this morning that Gebhardt gave his report, and then you gave a report; did I hear you correctly in that you stated that from your report it could have been ascertained that three persons died as a result of the experiments?
Q Was it or was it not obvious from this report of Gebhardt and yourself that concentration camp inmates were used?
A I endeavored to remember that exactly. At that time, and always since, I had a conception that that was so. I myself didn't report on that, since I only mentioned the technical part. The introductory words were spoken by Professor Doctor Gebhardt. As I now try to concentrate on these matters an try to give you some reliable information, I cannot tell you with a certainty that the word "Concentration Camp", or the concept concentration camp, was mentioned during the report made by Professor Gebhardt.
Q Did Gebhardt make it obvious that involuntary subjects were used?
A No, he did not do that.
Q Did Rostock state that it was obvious that involuntary subjects are used?
A Professor Rostock did not speak at all on these matters.
Q Didn't Professor Rostock tell us that he can recall Professor Gebhardt said they used persons condemned to death for these experiments, and such persons would receive a pardon if they successfully underwent the experiments; I am sure he told us that?
A I remember that too, I remember he said it here, here on this seat.
Q After your report did Brandt stand up and object.
A No, that was not so.
Q Did Handloser object?
A No, nobody objected.
Q Nobody inquired about the three deaths which were obvious from your fever curve charts, or whatever reports you did have there?
A Nobody did that during the meeting, and nobody raised any such questions when speaking to me personally.
Q Didn't Gebhardt, in his testimony while on the stand, which is on page 3969 of the English transcript, page 4001 of the German transcript, state, and I quote: "I have always obeyed what was ordered, and demanded the same from anyone who was subordinated to me.' Is it true in your opinion that Doctor Gebhardt always insisted on absolute obedience?
A Dr. Gebhardt always maintained this principle of absolute obedience in his clinic, and whenever he was active in military situations he demanded and maintained that principle to an extreme extent with the help of his powerful personality.
Q What was your rank, Doctor?
A In July 1942 I was Obersturmfuehrer.
Q Did that place you definitely under Gruppenfuehrer Gebhardt in his triple capacity as a Gruppenfuehrer, Chief Physician of the Medical Service of the SS, and Chief of Hohenlychen hospital?
A I was subordinated directly to Professor Gebhardt in a very clear channel of command.
Q What was Dr. Stumpfegger's rank again?
A Dr. Stumpfegger was at that time Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q Was he also an assistant in the Hohenlychen hospital?
A Dr. Stumpfegger during peace time was assistant at Hohenlychen, and he was assistant there at the beginning of the war; then he went to the front as the leader of this Surgeons' Group to the divisions and in 1942 was the escort physician of Himmler.
Q Well, during the time that Stumpfegger was at Hohenlychen engaged in his activities at Ravensbrueck did Gebhardt, the Gruppenfuehrer, always insist on absolute obedience on the part of Dr. Stumpfegger?
A Stumpfegger, on the basis of his position with the Reichs Fuehrer, held a special place, and he was no longer a member of the clinic during that time. Stumpfegger, who later became the escort physician of Hitler, went away from the ties of the clinic and had a special situation which had nothing to do any more with the clinic or the hospital.
Q Well now, could Dr. Stumpfegger, while working at Hohenlychen or Ravensbruck, do any experimental or surgical work of which Dr. Gebhardt disapproved?
A Yes, Mr. Prosecutor, I would assume that.
Q What sort of a person was Dr. Gebhardt as a chief; could one talk to him or argue with him, or did he tolerate no argument or contradiction?
A Professor Gebhardt was an active man, he was a creative man, he was not quite easy to work for as a superior, and the possibilities for discussion were very limited. On the other hand, we assistants put ourselves all under his command because we saw a complete justification of his behavior because of the efforts he had made during his life and because of what he achieved. We understood that he wanted obedience, both civilian and military obedience during the war.
Q It is true that he was a hard man to talk to; isn't it?
A It was difficult to get into any conversation with him; whenever he decided to give an order, or when he had come to express an opinion which he himself had already judged he represented this opinion as being correct and maintained this opinion with clear initiative. This is true of all his work, and I should like to say that if had he not possessed this characteristic of a human being, most of his work, which was done by his own personal creation, would not have been possible.
Q Well, now, you state he did not tolerate any argument or contradiction, didn't you?
A No question came through.
Q I said you would state that he did not tolerate any argument or contradiction?
A No, he didn't allow that.
Q Well now, in Gebhardt's direct examination on page 4000 of the German transcript, Dr. Gebhardt said that the form of orders, and the system of authority under which he lived was, as he knows now, of such stringency that it was only possible if the one giving the order was omniscient; did Gebhardt act in his capacity as a superior as if he were omniscient?
DR. SEIDL (Defense Counsel for Professor Gebhardt): Mr. President, I believe that I can remember what Dr. Gebhardt testified as a witness on the stand. I think I can say with certainty that he made no utterance of that contents. It can only be a question of a mistake in the translation, and I should like to state at this opportunity that in view of the incorrect translation of the statements made by Professor Gebhardt, I have made the application in writing to the General Secretary that the testimony of Gebhardt be compared with the discs and the records made, and that the translation be corrected. With reference to the utterance which has just been quoted, I think I can say with certainty that such a sentence had never been expressed.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, to avoid any confusion or delay, I will withdraw my question BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Fischer, Dr. Gebhardt testified here on the stand that at Hohenlychen he had the supervision of Frau Himmler and her children; was this Mrs. Himmler at Hohenlychen, or was this Himmler's mistress?
A I am not informed about these relationships, Mr. Prosecutor. I am not informed sufficiently to give any exact statements here.
Q Did Gebhardt care for any other women and children of higher officials at Hohenlychen?
A I know nothing of that.
Q What is your frank opinion about the results, scientifically and practically, of the experiments at Ravensbruck; briefly, Doctor?
A I already expressed this opinion during direct examination. I believe that I clearly expressed that the hope which prevailed among certain circles of physicians, namely that sulfonamides would develop a means which would enable us to care for war wounds and would make a careful surgical treatment superfluous, had become a hope which turned out to be a failure, and that I think was the only practical result achieved. I am also convinced that the second conclusion, which bears a more theoretical character, namely the limitation of the effectiveness of sulfonamides in the case of bacteriological infectuous diseases, according to the strictest morphological point of view had been a very essential recognition.
A I am almost of the opinion that this will become essentially effective in the future. That is shortly summarized the conception which I have about these matters.
Q Thank you. What was the last time, or when was the. last time, in which you saw any of the experimental subjects after the experimental operation, apart from those that you saw in this courtroom?
A That must have been around the middle of December, 1942.
Q For how long after each experimental operation did you have any of these subjects under your observation?
A The regular change cf dressing continued up to three weeks.
Q What was the latest time after the experimental operation at which you saw any of these subjects. Was it merely three weeks?
A No. During these changes of dressings patients, experimental subjects from previous experiments reported for changes of their dressing, so that I could check on the patients for a period up to eight weeks.
Q Were any plans made by you and Gebhardt for regular follow-ups after the experimental operations, that is, until such time as the person experimented on was completely restored to a condition whereby they could have freedom of locomotion, and so forth?
A Mr. Prosecutor, the question is not clear enough for me to answer it. May I ask you to repeat it?
Q Were any plans made for regular follow-ups after the experimental operations?
A I believe that Gebhardt had such a plan or, at least, had such an intention. At that time I left Hohenlychen, and I think that if this was not actually executed, it was not done for two reasons: one, -- and I think that is the specific result of Gebhardt's work at all -- that every rehabilitating operation needs a transition period of at least two years, and that every form of exercise treatment, massage treatment and follow-up treatment where any inflammatory disease had only just is not only useless but extremely dangerous. I believe that the external stopped, circumstances alone, and I mean the slowly appearing catastrophe of 1944 and 1945, prevented Gebhardt from realizing his intention.
Q Now, were there any plans made for restorative operations and for cosmetic improvement of the results after a period of one or two years? I think you can answer that "Yes" or "No", Doctor.
A During that time I was not there, and for that reason I cannot answer that question.
Q Well now, Dr. Gebhardt said on the stand that plastic improvement of the operative residuals could have been attempted two years after the experiments. What was done in regard to this problem in the Summer of 1944, and in case you were not there, do you know of any such plans having been made?
A I wasn't there and I don't know what plans were made.
Q Well now, when you returned to Hohenlychen after your injury and took up work there again in 1944, did you carry out follow-up examinations on the experimental subjects in nearby Ravensbrueck?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I didn't return to Hohenlychen, and I didn't work there any longer. I returned, yes, but I returned as a patient, and before my final cure I left the hospital. In December, 1944 I was again in Berlin.
MR. HARDY: Pardon me, Your Honor. I only have a few questions, and I may run over four-thirty, but I can finish today within a reasonable time, and if Your Honor so sees fit, I would like to finish today.
Q Well now, Doctor, you operated on these girls. You were the operating surgeon. Didn't you feel responsible for them?
A Mr. Prosecutor, at that time I was quite clear about that, and I have to revert to the entire situation once more, that during the war situations arose, and if there will be any more wars in the future situations will arise again, there will be situations where the individual man who acts must limit his own responsibility whenever anything is ordered in this sense. I don't want to take up your patience and I don't want you to have to listen to yet another example where human beings have to act, have to cause suffering, and in the course of their activity have to experience death, who as individuals would also never do that, and who are freed by the State because of the fact that they were acting on the basis of the law which takes that responsibility away from them* Beyond that there is a moral sanctioning -
Q All right, Doctor. We have gone over that several times. I have a few more questions to put to you and you can answer them "Yes" or "No", I believe. If you feel you cannot, you may go into detail.
Now here you returned to Hohenlychen in 1944. You had operated on these girls. You had orders to operate on these girls, you state, but now as a doctor and as a humane person, did you show any interest in the girls when you returned? Did you ask whether they were still alive and how they were getting along?
A I spoke to the Polish technical assistant about that problem. She told me. that the experimental patients were still at Ravensbrueck. At that time I expressed my opinion and my concern.
Q Who is this Polish technical assistant? Where was that assistant stationed? At Hohenlychen?
A Yes, she was in Hohenlychen.
Q Where did she come from?
A From Ravensbrueck.
Q Oh, you had inmates of Ravensbrueck working at Hohenlychen, is that right?
A Yes, that was the case.
Q Did you know that the six girls were executed in spite of the fact that they were submitted to these experiments?
A No, I didn't know that, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Well now, I assume that these girls had an original agreement when they underwent these experiments, according to your testimony and the testimony of Professor Gebhardt, that is, that if they successfully endured these experiments that their sentences would be reduced. Now I ask you, Dr. Fischer, did you make any attempt to find out yourself whether such breaches of the original agreement, assuming that such an agreement did exist, had occurred or had not occurred?
A I turned to Professor Gebhardt with that question about the fate of the experimental subject. I discussed these matters with him because
this was the only channel I had for any such discussion.
Q Well then, Doctor, after these experiments in a place that was twelve kilometers from Hohenlychen, those girls were merely abandoned, young ladies like Miss Kiesmierszak who was here in this courtroom, to the tender mercies of the concentration camp doctor, is that correct?
A Mr. hardy, if you are presenting these matters in that form, you are attributing too wide a limitation to me, my possibilities, and my responsibilities. And not as much to responsibility as to the possibility.
Q All right, Doctor, you have stated that as a human being, a person and a physician, that these experiments, or t the subjection of persons to experiments without their consent, was not permissible and that you wouldn't have done it under ordinary circumstances, is that right?
A I testified that under normal circumstances I would not have performed these experiments.
Q Well, now, you have stated that the only reason why you performed these experiments was because of superior orders from Professor Gebhardt and above, is that right?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Suppose you had refused to carry out those experiments, what would Gebhardt have done to you? Would anything have happened to you?
A That is a question which I cannot answer factually, and you cannot expect me to give you an answer whereby I make an assumption or invent something.
In the year of 1942 the basic question was different. It was not a fear of a death sentence or anything like that, but the alternative was either to be obedient or be disobedient during the war, and thereby set an example, an example of disobedience.
Q Now, you the obedient young soldier, Doctor, assume Dr. Gebhardt had ordered you, orders, superior orders from the Gruppenfuehrer, to cut the arm off Dr. Oberhauser because they wanted to use it in an experiment, what would you have done?
A I cannot answer that question.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 12 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 12 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will Please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1. Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all defendants are present in court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Oberheuser, who is absent in the hospital on account of illness.
Counsel may proceed.
FRITZ FISCHER - Resumed
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions on cross-examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL (Counsel for the defendant Fischer):
Q. Witness, assuming that in the year 1942 you had been condemned to death for refusing to obey orders, would you then have given permission that an experiment should be carried out on you, if you were thereby offered the chance to have your sentence commuted?
A. Yes, I would have taken this offer and chance.
Q. The experimental persons, on whom the experiments were carried out, belonged to the Polish resistance movement. They have admitted that all here and also confirmed it in their affidavit. Consequently, they were condemned to death. I ask you now, could you not assume at the beginning of the experiments that these girls also would take advantage of the opportunity and would consent to the experiments, and that they had to arrive at this conclusion, particularly if they made a critical appraisal of their situation?
A. Yes, I assumed that that was so at that time.
Q. The sulfonamide experiments were for the purpose of testing a certain series of preparations, as you described yesterday. Is it correct that one of these preparations was ultraseptil, developed by Dr. Morrell, Hitler's personal physician, and that this was a preparation that had not yet been used by field army physicians?
A. Yes, one of the preparations to be tested was ultraseptil. I did not know about that preparation at that time nor had I heard that it had been us.ed by army physicians.
Q. Did you know that Professor Dr. Gebhardt was ordered by Hitler to treat Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, chief of the RSHA, surgically, after the attempt on his life?
A. Yes, I knew that Gebhardt was absent from Hohenlychen in June and was attending Heydrich on his sickbed.
Q. You yesterday described the contents of the order that Professor Gebhardt gave you at the start of the sulfonamide experiments. Was it clear to you in this matter that the legal aspect of the problem, namely, the question of whether or not the experiments were permissible and who was competent to decide about them, lay not only entirely outside your competence but also outside Gebhardt's competence?
A. Yes, I was clearly told that this was an affair that had been legalized by the state and I had to assume that Professor Gebhardt also was not the person who legally had to decide on it.
MR. HARDY: I submit that we have gone over this same line of question time and time again and I object to this or questions of this sort.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that this matter has been gone into quite thoroughly on examination of counsel. It does not desire to restrict counsel's examination of the witness but repetition should be avoided.
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I shall do my best to avoid repetitions.
BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. The witness Mazka testified here and admitted that she could see the experimental subjects only superficially and relied largely on what others present, namely, the prisoners or the nurses, told her. It does not seem beyond the realm of possibility that it must have been impossible for Dr. Mazka to achieve really a clear picture of the sickness and its course.
A. Yes, because the precise analysis of a case of illness is very difficult and unless you are in the immediate vicinity of that sickness it is almost impossible.
Q You yesterday described or stated that you felt pity fur the Polish girls on whom the experiments were carried out. Was not the decisive thing for both you and Dr. Gebhardt the effort to save the lives of these persons which, with a few regrettable cases, you were successful in?
A. Yes, I know that Professor Gebhardt wished above all, and told me so frequently, that everything should be done to save the lives of those in danger.