If these documents prove that in almost all nations of the world such experiments on non-volunteers are carried out without any objections on the part of the public, then in my opinion it has been sufficiently proved that such an undertaking of experiments of such a nature as was carried out here in Germany, are even in normal times not to be regarded as criminal, and then in a period in which a total war is being waged, it being such a period during which such experiments were carried out in Germany, and that is on orders of the highest officials in this case, they were all less to be regarded as criminal.
Another question will be which the Tribunal must examine is whether in the execution of these experiments any one can be charged with anything. However, in my opinion we must discriminate sharply between the question arising on medical experiments to clarify a question - - a medical question, or during wartime to present a military problem that non-voluntary persons, are they basically to be proved, or basically to be repudiated and characterized as criminals.
There is quite a different question on the other hand, namely, how these experiments were carried out, and the question, can a physician who carries out such experiments on State orders on persons whom the State make available to him for those experiments be punished for the experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any of these exhibits, particularly in Mrugowsky's Book No. 2, bear on the latter phase of the situation to which you just referred?
DR. FLEMMING: You mean the question of fact that subjects were made available by the State?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, whether they were made available by the State, and the experiments were tried pursuant to an order of the State?
DR. FLEMMING: Here are included experiments on prisoners on which the physician could not have carried out if it was these prisoner criminals had not been made available by the State.
I would like to remind the Tribunal of the document submitted by Professor Leibrandt regarding the malaria experiment on 800 prisoners. Howover, I have not included this document in this Document Book No. 2. The experiments in part were carried out in mental institutions, that is, in closed institutions in which the physician had access to the patient only if the governmental official in charge of the institution permitted it.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I can see that Dr. Flemming and I agree one-hundred percent. We are not charging here that experiments as such are illegal or criminal. These extracts are not evidence of criminal experiments. If they were extracts of criminal experiments, they would not hide the fact - - - - then they would have hidden the fact that they experimented on human beings. In addition he states to you of using persons in insane asylum. We don't charge Professor Rose of experimenting on people in mental institutes, and typhus groups, it is perfectly legitimate. We are charging him with criminal experimentation on non-volunteers, and this material has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what is before this Tribunal.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, the Prosecutor said that the charges are only with the carrying on of criminal experiments. Let me point out that experiments can be criminal only either because they are carried out on persons who do not volunteer, or because they are carried out in such a way as to be stated to be criminal, as an experiment on a human being per se is not criminal, and is what we want to prove by referring to experiments that took place throughout the world. Then only the question will remain, were they experiments carried out in such a way or nature and the way in which they were carried out, to make them criminal, and that is why I want to put in these documents.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Flemming, I understood the position of the Prosecution was that they would agree with you that ordinarily speaking experiments upon human beings per se were not criminal, that was my understanding of what Mr. Hardy said.
Provided, of course, as Karl Brandt had stated from the witness box, the witnesses were volunteers, and the results to be expected were results which would be beneficial, and the expected results or anticipated results would be known to the physician by virtue of the fact that the field had been explored so far as possible as to experimentations upon animals, and that the contemplated experimental subjects would be given full information concerning the nature of the experiments, and the hazard expected, or normally expected to be encountered. It may be I am in error in my recollection, but it seems to me that is in essence to what Dr. Karl Brandt said from the witness stand. Now do these extracts of scientific data, I suppose taken from books, periodicals and scientific or medical treatises I disclose the state or the condition of the human being upon whom the experiments were being conducted. That is to say, does it disclose that they were or were not voluntary subjects? Does it disclose that they were inmates of the institution, and were made available by order of a governmental authority without having any choice in the matter of whether they would or would not be selected as experimental subjects?
DR. FLEMMING: In few of the experiments they are experiments on persons condemned to death, as is the case here in this court. In other cases they are experiments on children.
JUDGE SEBRING: Is that made to appear by the extracts offered?
DR. FLEMMING: They were children, yes.
MR. HARDY: Dr. Alexander has been reading this, and he can not find such a notation as it is stated by the defense counsel. It maybe we might proof read this document more carefully.
JUDGE SEBRING: I have been scanning them, and the documents I have scanned sofar do not disclose the status of the experimental subjects.
DR. FLEMMING: I am afraid that the translation was not correct. The translation said "The condition." I said, you can mean whether or not they were volunteers, didn't you?
JUDGE SEBRING: Precisely, yes.
DR. FLEMMING: It is my opinion that persons in a mental institution, in prison, and children can not be volunteers, and for this reason I am of the opinion that these experiments sofar as they are carried out on such persons are all exactly of the same sort as experiments here under discussion at the moment.
JUDGE SEBRING: Are you agreed to that statement on behalf of your client that it is impossible for a person incarcerated in an insane asylum, or children hospital, or other public institution to give a valid consent to experimentation upon a person?
DR. FLEMMING: A person in a mental institution in my opinion could never give his permission for an experiment to be carried out on him, because he is not in a position to be rational about the whole question.
JUDGE SEBRING: I understand that perfectly, but do you confine your statement to that particular individual who because of mental deficiency is incapable legally of giving consent?
DR. FLEMMING: No, but I am submitting these documents and I want to show that everywhere in the world no objection is raised by the public against experiments of this sort. The experiments have been public, no one objected to them, and it shows that attitude in the whole world is that experiments can be carried out on such persons if scientific interest makes it necessary. The public then sees it also as ethically necessary, necessary from the ethical point of view and has no objection.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the Prosecution will stipulate that experimentations throughout the world is permissible on voluntary subject, and will stipulate that fact, but will not stipulate that experimentations is admissible or permissible on non-volunteers in any section of the world. In view of the fact that most of these documents that will be introduced are of that nature, then I don't see any reason for them to be put into evidence here.
DR. FLEMMING: To the extent that experiments are carried out on prisoners, it is everywhere in the world the fact that these experiments are carried out on persons who exercise this will, but this will is so limited by the fact they are in prison they cannot give any voluntary consent, and I say again I have not in any manner in my document book given a single experiment where the subject was voluntary. In most places where any literature, there is mentioned that experiments were carried out on so and so many volunteers. Now I don't include these cases in my book. Where ever that statement was not made, I assume they were not volunteers, and I have not included those experiments in my document book.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be recess at 1:30 o'clock and will examine the different documents in the mean time.
(Recess of the Tribunal until 1330 hours, 3 April 1947)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 3 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has examined documents contained in Mrugowsky Book 2....
DR. FLEMMING: May I make one explanation first? It has been brought to my attention that apparently on the question of the voluntary nature of the people in prisons I expressed myself incorrectly. It is, of course, possible that there is a certain degree of voluntariness on the part of people in prisons but in the case of persons who are so limited in their freedom of movement when in prison one must assume that in contrast to people who can move freely it cannot be assumed that they are volunteers if they place themselves at the disposal of such experiments. It is possible that people did volunteer in prison, as the article in LIFE shows about the 800 prisoners who volunteered for malaria experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has examined Mrugowsky Document Book 2 and, as it occurs to the Tribunal that some of the other defendants might offer similar documents in evidence before the conclusion of the trial, that it would be advisable to postpone a definite ruling upon this matter until the last defendant has closed his case, at which time, if other documents have been offered, they can all be considered together. If no other documents are offered at that time, the Tribunal will again consider the offer by counsel for Defendant Mrugowsky of documents in his Book 2.
MR. HARDY: In view of the Tribunal's ruling, then, when documents of this nature are submitted, will it be necessary for me on each occasion to render a formal objection or, on documents of this nature, can we reserve our right to object until the end of the completion of each defendant's case?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that would be on such documents as this, publications, whether in newspapers, magazines, or books, which are offered in evidence and which correspond to these documents contained in Mrugowsky Document Book 2. Those documents will all be considered when the last defendant has rested his case and objections may be reserved until that time because the Tribunal will not consider, from this time on, the admission of evidence of this nature.
MR. HARDY: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It is understood, of course, for the record, that this ruling preserves the right of Defendant Mrugowsky to offer this document book at some later time.
DR. FLEMMING: Then I should merely like to ask to reserve the right, Mr. President, for submitting a number of affidavits and other documents later, which have not yet been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean, of course, documents of similar nature to those contained in your Document Book 2?
DR. FLEMMING: No, documents of a different nature,--affidavits and similar evidence, such as in Document Book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: And you say that those documents are not now ready to be presented to the Tribunal, is that correct?
DR. FLEMMING: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: It has not been the policy of the Tribunal to close the door to evidence which may be competent evidence which may be offered, material evidence, by other defendants as their cases are heard, before the last defendant has rested his case. The Tribunal understands that the defendants are under some handicap in preparing their evidence so the matter will be acted upon and any defendant will be heard before the defendants have closed their case and other evidence may be offered and will not be rejected upon the ground that it is offered too late-- I mean upon the ground alone that the evidence is offered too late.
DR. FLEMMING: Then, at the moment, I have nothing more to submit in the Mrugowsky case.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand then, counsel, that all the documents contained in Document Book 1 and Document Book 1-A which you desire to offer at any time, have now been offered?
DR. FLEMMNG: Yes, they have all been offered.
DR. SEIDL (For the defendant Herta Oberheuser): Before I ask the Tribunal to call the defendant Dr. Oberheuser to the witness stand, I should like to offer the affidavit of a witness whose examination has been approved by the Tribunal. In view of the fact that this witness, Margaretha Mydla, who is in Berlin, has not yet arrived, I shall first offer an affidavit. It is possible that after the presentation of evidence in the case of the defendant Oberheuser I shall be able to dispense with examining this witness before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the document book been prepared for the defendant Oberheuser?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, the documents for the defendant Oberheuser are in the same document book as for the defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt, which has already been offered. Other documents are in Document Book 2, which will be offered later. In view of the fact that the witness has not yet arrived, I should like to read merely this one affidavit out of order. The affidavit reads as follows --
THE PRESIDENT: Are copies of this affidavit available for the Tribunal?
DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, I assumed that copies had already been given to the Tribunal, but I still have a few translations.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, as I understand it, apparently this is the same document book which has been put in for Gebhardt, Fischer, and Oberheuser, and this is an additional affidavit to that document book.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: That is my understanding.
DR. SEIDL: The affidavit reads as follows --
THE PRESIDENT: What number do you assign to this exhibit?
DR. SEIDL: I shall give it the number of Oberheuser No. 1. I quote:
"I, Frau Margaretha Mydla, resident at Berlin, 0 112, Herterstrasse 3/11, have had my attention called to fact that I make myself liable to punishment if I give a false affidavit. I declare on oath that my state ment is true and correct and that it was made in order to be submitted as evidence to the Military Tribunal No. 1 at the Palace of Justice, Nuernberg, Germany.
"On 13 January 1943 I was for political reasons sent to the women's concentration camp Ravensbruck. The reason for my detention in this camp was the fact that I had uttered insulting remarks about the wife of Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.
"Already ten days after my arrival in the camp, viz. on January 24, 1943, I fell seriously ill. I was taken to the sick bay of the camp where the camp physician, Dr. Rosenthal, was to treat me. Dr. Rosenthal, however, did not concern himself with me and I owe it merely to the help of other prisoners that Dr. Rosenthal did not, on account of my exceedingly poor general state of health and my serious illness, kill me or lighten my death after six days by an injection. He evidently doubted my recovery.
"After three weeks in the sick bay of the camp I was taken back to my block in a very poor state indeed.
"After eight days I was again admitted to the sick bay where Frl. Dr. Oberheuser treated me. She was the first to ascertain that I suffered from abdominal typhus. I further had erysipelas of the leg and inguinal rupture and furthermore suffered from an intense itch. Frl. Dr. Oberheuser gave me all conceivable care and also saw to it that I received a suitable diet, although I was only a skeleton and weighed 84 pounds instead of 126 when I was put under her care in the sick bay. Frl. Dr. Oberheuser did not only see to it that I received good food but by giving me suitable medicaments she did everything that was in her power and that could help me, in strong contrast to Dr. Rosenthal, who did not concern himself with me at all.
"Frl. Dr. Oberheuser has used her influence for me and even reprimanded the nurse who refused to give me my medicine, and then ordered her to give me the prescribed medicaments and also the corresponding anodynes.
"But Frl. Dr. Oberheuser did not only help me by doing everything within her power. I can testify from my own observation and from the reports of other fellow prisoners that she also tried to help other patients who were really ill, and that she treated the sick in a decent and humane manner. One must, however, not overlook the fact here that the prisoners contained many anti-social elements, prostitutes, criminals with repeated previous convictions, and other persons who wrongly laid claim to the amenities of the sick bay at the cost of the really sick.
"To sum up, I wish to state that Frl. Dr. Oberheuser, in spite of difficult conditions and though she herself was obviously bound by the instructions of the camp physician, has treated me well during the many months of my illness and that she did everything to restore my health. In the same manner she tried to help the other patients of the sick bay whenever she could and I never saw that she mistreated a woman patient.
"I make this statement voluntarily and I want to emphasize that the attention of Frl. Dr. Oberheuser's defense counsel was drawn to me by a letter which I wrote him of my own accord on 18 January 1947. Berlin, 20 February 1947." Signed: "Margaretha Mydla nee Kuhn."
Then there follows the certificate of the notary. This document, as I have already said, will be given the Exhibit Oberheuser No. 1.
Mr. President, I ask the Tribunal to call the defendant Dr. Herta Oberheuser to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Herta Oberheuser will take the stand.
HERTA OBERHEUSER took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. What is your name?
A. Herta Oberheuser.
Q. Will you repeat this oath after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SEIDL:
Q. When and where were you born?
A. I was born 15 May 1911 in Cologne on the Rhine.
Q. The prosecution has already submitted your affidavit in which you described your life briefly. This is Prosecution Document No. 27. I ask you now to describe and to supplement your affidavit concerning your life and also your scientific training.
A. I come from a middle class conservative Christian family. My father is an engineer. I spent my youth in Duesseldorf and attended the Louisenschule, the city school in Duesseldorf, from 1918 to 1931. I graduated from this school. Then after the inflation there were financial difficulties for my parents and I was forced to finance my studies in part myself. I attempted to do so by giving lessons and by helping a doctor in his practice. My pre-clinical semesters I studied at Bonn and from the fourth semester I was at the physiological institute under Professor Ebbeke. During my clinical semesters I was in Duesseldorf and I took the state examination there.
In my affidavit I said that I was a member of the BDM, the Hitler Youth Girls Organization. This came about in the following way. As a senior medical student we were called upon to place ourselves at the disposal of the BDM; that is, we were ordered because there were so few female doctors in Duesseldorf. I found young girls there who had been forced into this organization; they had too much sports to do and to much service. The parents had already objected to this. I tried to do something to alleviate these conditions and we examined the girls medically. We were present at sport meetings in order to avoid leaving the young girls to their young leaders so that they would not over-exert themselves. This was a purely medical activity and this was part of the reason why I later became a party member.
Q. Well, after you finished your studies and after you finished your examinations, where did you practice as a doctor and were you inde pendent in that position?
A. I was never independent during my activity. First I went back to the Physiological Institute in Bonn under Professor Ebbeke. I remained there a rather short time since I had to continue my clinical training. Then I went to the medical clinic in Duesseldorf under Professor Ebens. I decided to specialize in skin diseases and study at the skin or dermatological clinic. I went to the dermatological clinic at Duesseldorf and completed my specialized training there.
As I said, I never worked independently. I had the position of a voluntary assistant there. Then there were some financial difficulties for me and since my father was seriously ill for a long time I was forced to earn my living myself. There was no possibility for me at the clinic to receive a position under the budget and so I looked for another position. I was offered a position that seemed favorable to me and I went to Ravensbruck to the women's camp. That was in December of 1940. Because being a woman, the difficulties there were increasingly great for me and I tried to change my place of work. In June of 1943 I finally succeeded in that and then I came to the sanatorium of the Red Cross under Professor Gebhardt and worked there until the end of the war.
Q. So you were a specialist in skin diseases, and venereal diseases?
A. Yes.
Q. How was it that in 1940 you went to the concentration camp Ravensbruck? How was your attention drawn to this?
A. In a medical journal I saw an announcement that a specialist for skin and venereal diseases was wanted in a women's training camp, the financial possibilities were rather favorable, the camp was near Berlin, and I decided to work there.
Q. The advertisement in the medical periodical referred to a women's training camp. Were you in Ravensbruck as an independent doctor, and what were your tasks there.
A. I had not known of the camp before. I learned of it only when I read the announcement in the paper. At that time, at the end of 1940, there were about three thousand women and the impression it made on me was quite orderly. I was never independent there. I was under the instructions of the post physician. However, he left me freedom to work as I like in my own specialty. But suddenly I found myself on a military staff. I was not able to adjust to this at first. It took weeks until I had become used to it. The administrative and disciplinary matters all went through military channels. I was outside of the military organization; I was not wanted here; and I withdrew to my own specialized field. I had no help from the German nurses. I worked only with the prisoner nurses who helped me in my enormous work. These prisoner nurses were composed of doctors, nurses, and students. There were Poles, Czechs, Germans, and, finally, Russians. These workers were assigned by orders, who had been assigned to work in the hospital. They took charge of the ambulatory patients, and I had the impression that they liked working with me. They saw the enormous danger for their political prisoners since there was an enormous amount of venereal diseases. In the big Dusseldorf clinic I never had so many fresh cases as in this camp. Not only venereal diseases, but also skin diseases were widespread.
I showed the nurses the diagnosis and discussed therapy with them. My relationship with them was an official one, but I always maintained a clinical tone with them. I believe it is easiest to understand my work if I briefly describe a working day. The patients were treated, medicines were given, the dressings were applied, and patients where the diagnosis had not been cleared up I gave appointments for the afternoon. At certain hours in the morning there was treatment of syphilis cases. This lasted until the late hours of the morning. The rest of the morning I spent visiting the wards. In the afternoon service began at two-thirty but usually I had to start earlier since tho number of patients to be treated and to be examined was too large. First I could not handle more than eighty in one afternoon. Then I looked at the special cases, de-licing operations were carried out, and I also looked at the new preparations in order to avoid contagion and to be able to isolate the people if necessary. After the end of the working day I examined the eighty preparations microscopically. Here I gained insight for the first time into how great the number of skin and venereal cases is in such a camp. I was in contact with the head of my Dusseldorf clinic in order to keep myself informed on this. He also advised me so that I should introduce the most effective therapeutic methods here, and he advised me in cases which occurred during the war especially and which we had not known before.
Q. If I understand you correctly, your activity, in other words, consisted of the treatment of people with skin diseases and venereal diseases?
A. Yes; and then I treated everyone who asked me for it.
Q. How, in 1940, when you joined the camp, was the general conditions there, and, above all, the conditions as regards hygiene?
A. At the beginning the camp had about three thousand women, and the number gradually increased in the course of time. In the beginning the camp had about three thousand women, and the number gradually increased in the course of time. In the beginning it was 75%, I might say, criminals.
These were prostitutes and persons who had been convicted previously. There were very few political prisoners at that time and almost no Jews. In the course of time the numbers gradually increased; and more political prisoners, and more foreigners, came to the camp and, of course, the number of skin and venereal disease cases also increased gradually so that the work became greater and greater, and here we had to avoid contagion. The arrangements of the hospital were those of a specialized practice. Medicines, ointments, and dressings were available in adequate quantities.
Q Now, how did things proceed in subsequent years?
AAs I have already described, the number of inmates increased gradually and the number of patients also increased. As I have already said, they were not only political prisoners but also criminals and very many of them. I was forced to keep a certain distance. This was ordered and it was also necessary. I tried to take a middle path here. I gave my assistance to everyone who asked me for it; and I treated everyone equally; and I believe that the patients were quite satisfied with the care I gave them.
I was aided by the prisoner nurses. I was on good terms with them. I had no help from the German nurses. They had no interest in my specialty. Perhaps there was too much work in my department. They preferred to help my colleagues; and they worked in the laboratory, in the pharmacy, or in the operating room. I had to rely on myself for all my great amount of work. My colleagues lived and acted according to other principles, which were foreign to me, which I did not know from the clinic, and which I rejected.
I happened to be told once before I went on leave when I was taking care of my patients, "I suppose you imagine that the hospital can't get along without you." I had to listen to this as a doctor fulfilling my duty, when the patients meant everything to me. The nurses and doctors were an SS clique who were hostile to me. I was not wanted; and I did not feel at home among them.
It was different when Prof. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer came to the camp. Here again I was working with the head of a clinic and a clinical assistant; and they recognized me as a ward doctor. This was the clinical circle to which I was accustomed; and I looked to them for help as a woman and as a doctor, and not to the people whose feelings and actions did not correspond. In the presence of Prof. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer the camp doctors tried to keep busy; but this came to an end again as soon as the men from Hohenlichen had left.
Q Did your activity in the camp of Ravensbruck become congenial to you?
A I was supposed to help the women who were in custody here; and I was to protect the political prisoners from contagion. For the sake of the patients I tried to stay in the camp and not to escape for selfish reasons. I was able to help individual patients. I could not change the camp as a whole. I could not help anyone to be released; and I had no disciplinary authority. So I tried to hold out. But conditions became constantly worse; and it was no longer possible to go on.
Medicine began to become scarce so that medical care became more difficult. Then there were difficulties in getting out for I was obligated to serve. I did not know how to get out. The only chance was when Prof. Gebhardt came; and I asked him for help.
Q At the beginning of your examination you described that in 1940 you went to Ravensbruck on the basis of an advertisement in a scientific periodical. Then, in other words, you went voluntarily?
A Yes.
Q But you also said when you answered my last question that you were obligated to serve?
A Yes.
Q I conclude from that that later on you could not leave the camp without having special permission first?
AAfter a short time, perhaps three months, I had been obligated to serve; and I was not able to get out any longer.
Q In 1943 when you actually left the camp, you did that because of Prof. Gebhardt, who helped you with the authorities concerned?
A Yes.
Q Both Dr. Gebhardt and Prof. Fischer talked about the sick bay before, the sick bay which was in the Ravensbruck Camp. Can you confirm what they said?
A Yes. The hospital consisted of three barracks. One was the clinic and two were wards. The hospital was constantly being enlarged as the number of patients increased. The barracks which was used as a clinic for out patients had a dressing room, a gynecological examination room, and X-ray room, a laboratory, a pharmacy, and so forth.
The wards had single beds and small and large rooms. The beds were made up with sheets. The patients were given underwear. The barracks had central heating, running hot and cold water, baths; and we also had a small diet kitchen. There were prisoner nurses taking care of the patients, Poles, Czechs, and so forth, as I said before.
Q I now come to the sulfonamide experiments which are part of the prosecution's indictment. These experiments began in the summer of 1942; and I am now asking you how was it that you yourself came into contact with those experiments, and what did you think at the time?
AA short time before the experiments began, I was told by the post physician -- that was at that time Dr. Schilausky -- that I was to evacuate a few of my rooms. He did not give me the reason at that time. Shortly before the experiments began, Prof. Gebhardt and Dr. Fischer came with the post physician and some other gentlemen, but I cannot remember who they wore anymore. They inspected the rooms. Prof. Gebhardt told me that experiments were to be carried out on women who had been condemned to death. I was astonished; but he said that these experiments had been ordered by a very high authority; that the State had ordered it; and that everything was legal; and that the persons concerned who had been condemned to death would be given a chance to be pardoned. He also stated that the experiments would not be dangerous.
After I had thought it over and considered that they were to be conducted by Prof. Gebhardt -- whom I had not known personally before, it is true, but whose reputation I knew because of his big clinic -- I said to myself, "If Prof. Gebhardt carries it out, it will probably be right." And, besides, there was a chance for the women of being pardoned; and, finally, the experiments would not be dangerous.
Q Were you put into contact with these experiments by an outward factor; in other words, that is to say, by the fact that the patients were housed in rooms near the operation theatre and that these rooms were a part of your station?
A Yes. There was no connection with the other stations at the time; otherwise I would probably have learned nothing about it.
Q Were you present at any of the conferences which were held before the experiments began among doctors who took part in the experiments, or were you present at any of the conferences connected with the experiments?
A No. I had to take care of my duties as the doctor in charge of the ward and nothing else.
Q So you did not hear what the object of these conferences were which Dr. Gebhardt described here in this court and which he held with Himmler, Dr. Grawitz, and other people?
A No.
Q Did you take part in selecting experimental subjects?
A No.
Q But you knew that the experimental subjects were Polish women sentenced to death and who were to be pardoned afterwards?
A Yes. I had no knowledge of the legal situation; but I knew that the women came from a block which was especially guarded and that these women were supposed to be condemned to death because of espionage or something like that. Also, we were not allowed to go out of the camp to work but had to remain in the camp. I also knew that they were to be pardoned if they survived the experiments. I observed one case where a patient in a sulfonamide series was actually pardoned. Whether the others were pardoned I do not know.
Q In this one case which you are thinking of, would you like to say that this experimental person was released?
A She was pardoned and at the same time as her Germanization released.
Q But you were not told what form the pardon should take in general and you thought that they would not be executed?