Q. Well, if you regard it as reliable, Doctor,and if you figure out the deaths among the untreated control persons and find a mortality which averaged eighty-one per cent, won't you, as a scientist and an expert on tropical diseases, concede that they had developed a highly virulent, something we might call a supertyphus, in Buchenwald? Isn't that right, Professor?
A. As a scientist I am accustomed to state my opinion on the basis of reliable documentation, and not on the basis of such falsifications which are produced for a special purpose.
Q. I can appreciate that you don't regard the document as reliable, Professor, but we'll investigate that a little later. Pursuing the same point which I have been putting to you and in reference to your answer about epidemic jaundice, are you prepared, as an expert, to state that a man to man passage of an epidemic jaundice virus could not bring about a new disease which might be quite deadly?
A. I have no personal experience in this since I never tried out any such experiments. I can only rely on what is said in English and American literature where such passage from man to man was carried out in more than six hundred cases, and no increase in virulence was observed. Moreover, the passage from man to man is the normal form of contagion in all infectious diseases which is not transmitted by any intermediate agent. For instance, diphtheria is transmitted only from man to man with no carrier, and meningitis is the same. If a new meningitis epidemic breaks out, then the mortality is, at the beginning, very high. It can be as high, for instance, as fifty per cent in meningitis. Then, after the epidemic has been in any one area for quite a while, the mortal ity drops. This is a pretty general epidemilogical law. That is not true only of meningitis, but of many other contagious diseases; namely, that the epidemic is more dangerous at the beginning than at the end of its course.
Q. Well are you sure that epidemic jaundice is transferred with out any intermediate area agents, is that right: do you know how it is transferred?
A. That is my scientific conviction, which I also stated during my interrogation in Letema. An excerpt of it is here as a document. It says there that we on the bases of our objections were convinced that hepatitis epidemic was not transmitted by a carrier, but that the infection occurs directly from man to man. In case this is important to you I could find you the passage in the document, but perhaps my mention suffices.
Q. Going back to the typhus experiment as an expert, are you prepared to tell this Tribunal it makes no difference in the severity of disease typhus if a man is infected by a bite of a louse in comparison to having two cubic centimeters of typhus infected blood injected intravenously?
A. Certainly. First of all there is a difference in the amount of the infecting agent, and the mass of the infecting agent always plays a great role in any such infectious disease.
Q. Nell, when you have two cubic centimeters of typhus infected blood injected into a man's blood stream, might not a scientist expect the disease would be so severe as to break down any protection?
A. One would have to have experience in this respect. Then one is very much inclined to make that assumption, namely that an infection with two cubic centimeters of blood would cause more serious illness than an injection with say one-tenth of a centimeter of infected blood. That is the assumption one would have about this from the very beginning, but what tho course of the desease really is, that would have to be observed.
Q. And it would take a simultaneous biting from about a million lice to put two cubic centimeters of infected blood into a man, wouldn't it, doctor?
A. I have never figured that out. Moreover the concentration of the typhus virus in the blood is not precisely known to me.
The lice feces contain the virus in great numbers, whereas in the blood these virus is so sparsely present that its presence cannot even be proved with a microscope, and to that extent the amount of two ccs of blood could not be measured with the amount of feces that a louse produced, because I assume you are referring to that the louse's bite does not transmit typhus at all. The saliva of the louse is not infectious, but apparently you were referring to the infectious feces of the louse which then gets into the louse bite.
Q. Professor, as I understand it, you and the co-defendants, regard the experiments of Strong with plague, and beri-beri involving around 950 men with one death, and the experiments of Blanc in Africa where there were no deaths, and the American maleria experiments where there were no deaths, as being quite a good precedent for the Buchenwald experiments with death around 290, with Schilling's experiments, where another Tribunal has found over 400 cases of deaths, either directly or indirectly, or the experiments of Haagen where the truth before this Tribunal shows 50 deaths, is that right?
A. You have referred to quite a number of cases which are partly absolutely not so. For instance no proof has been given yet that in the case of Haagen's experiments...... (no translation, because of sound system).
Q. Will you repeat your answer please. I got no translation.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, we might take an adjournment at this time, and the witness might have the intermission to consider his answer.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will be in recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 April 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. MC HANEY: Before continuing with cross examination, the prosecution requests that the Tribunal order at this time that Document NO1852, which was marked as Prosecution Exhibit 456 for identification. be made available to the defense counsel for Karl Brandt, Dr. Servatius. I understand an order of the court is necessary to have the original exhibit removed from the vault.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal directs that the original of prosecution exhibit for prosecution's identification 456 be brought into the court - be exhibited to counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt.
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. MC HANEY:
Q. You recall the answer I put to you before lunch. Will you please answer.
A. When the sound system broke down this morning, I just said that in the question which was put to me several assumptions are wrong and I must correct them. You said that in Professor Haagen's experiments 52 people died. In reality, that has not been proved, nor did any people die at all there. It believe that I cannot go into detail on this question here since that would be an argument and I was not permitted to do that on direct examination and I assume that I may not do so in cross examination either. You also said that in Professor Schilling's experiments 300 people died. This also is untrue. Through your witness here it was said that not a single person died of malaria in Schilling's experiments. The witness Vieweg said that. He also said that seven persons died from incidents in the course of treatment and errors in treatment. It is true that in Document Book 4 submitted by you the number 300 dead is given. These are supposed to be in some connection with the malaria experiments. I must assume that the court in Dachau had some expert who expressed his opinion to that effect.
I personally should like to say that I would rather be a defendant here than give my signature as a court expert to a document certifying that 300 people supposedly died after a disease which, according to proof, is not fatal like malaria tertiana. And considering the seven dead in Schilling's experiment, I should like to say that I personally should not like to be responsible for seven dead - seven dead would be enough of a burden for me. A single person who died from my negligence as a doctor would be an enormous burden on my conscience. I don't intend to quibble about the number of dead, I just merely wanted to make a correction.
And then you gave figures from the Buchenwald experiments. There again there are great differences between the numbers of dead in the experiment ordered by higher government authorities, and the experiments which Dr. Ding apparently carried out on his own initiative, to judge by his diary. After this correction of the assumptions I come to the answer.
You asked me whether I considered the indicated human experiments as a precedent which justified those experiments which are the subject of the indictment. I may say that of course one can only compare things which are comparable. In my direct examination I did not give any examples of human experiments. I mentioned only two cases of fully permissible experiments where I knew the details, in order to explain what the mental burden on the doctor in charge of the experiment is, and what his responsibility is. But if one wants to use these experiments as a comparison with those which are the subject of this trial, then in one case such a comparison is actually possible. For example, if you take the beri-beri experiments of Professor Strong, a disease was intentionally induced which involved severe suffering for the experimental subjects and one death, in spite of careful medical attention. This death was, of course, not such a great burden on the person in charge of the experiment since the person was already condemned to death as the paper says. As far as I can see, that would more or less correspond to the experiment of Professor Gebhardt.
He had 70 experimental subjects and had the misfortune of having three of them die. The others had severe illness. The mortality was about the same, three percent, and illness was caused with all the subjects. If you take Professor Mrugowsky's aconite, then there is no comparison in the examples which I mentioned, tut one can compare this execution with the poisoning of people condemned to death by carbon tetrachloride. That has not been quoted yet. I have intentionally not mentioned anything of the experiments because I know the ruling of the Tribunal that they had to be discussed only later. But in these poisonings with carbon tetrachloride, instead of hanging the people they were poisoned with carbon tetrachloride, and insofar as the poisoning was not fatal they were hanged later and their livers were examined in order to establish the effect of the carbon tetrachloride. That would be a parallel to this execution.
And if you want to take the Buchenwald passages, if you want to have a comparison, I'd mentioned Adler's experiments where all the experimental subjects died.
One can only compare what is comparable. Schilling's malaria experiments on prisoners can compare only with the American malaria experiments on prisoners. Of course, I cannot tell you in detail how many incidents occurred. I know that work was done with malaria tertiana in particular and no one can die from that in Americanany-more than in Dachau. How many incidents occurred during treatment, I do not know, but I do know that work was done in America with malaria tropica too and since Mr. Simmons did not have my Pfaffenrode tropica strains, which benign and not fatal, but had the normal tropical strains, it is hard to believe that these experiments went off without any casualties.
And now the fatalities of typhus in the experiments ordered by the German Government, one can of course compare the fatalities only with the typhus experiments in American prisons. I cannot give you the figures because they have not been published yet and possibly they will not be published because of the mortality in these experiments. It is generally known that such unpleasant incidents, which are a tragedy against the person responsible for the experiments in the eyes of the public, are not pleasant and such experiments can be made public only in a concealed form. Does that answer your question?
Q Well, of course, if one assumes as you do that the proof of the Prosecution is either falsified or non-existing and that no deaths occurred or if any deaths occurred that they were purely accidental, then of course there is no point at all in talking about comparison with experiments in other countries. The only conclusion then is that the Prosecution has no case and I submit to you that the proof the Prosecution has put in that 250 or more people died in Buchenwald from the typhus experiment and 157 in the experiments themselves and 100 at least in the experimental camp.
I submit to you that the Witness Schmidt has testified that people died in Haagen's experiments, irrespective of whether you believe it and I further submit to you that another Tribunal has held innumerable deaths occurred in Dachau.
I am asking you how you can draw any comparison, if you assume the proof to mean anything and if you don't there is no reason for me putting the question to you. If you assume the proof has some merit to it, how can you testify from that stand how there is any comparison between the experiments of Strong, where at least one person died and the malaria experiments in America where nobody died, etc. I suggest to you that possibly the difference in these experiments is that even in a prison in the Phillipine Islands and even in a prison in America, the prisoners have some rights. They have relatives, they not only vote but can sue in the courts, as can the prisoners them-sieves. If they are mistreated and a death is brought about they can obtain redress. I further put to you that in the concentration camps in Germany that the relatives in most cases, if they were non-German nationals, did not even know where they were; and if they died a falsified death certificate was sent to the relatives and in most cases they were regarded by their incarcerators as sum-human.
Now, doesn't that factual difference indicate to you that perhaps these experiments of Strong are in no way comparable to the experiments with which we are herewith concerned?
A First, I should like to say that I have not mentioned any experiments on human beings which are to be compared with the experiments here and I do not know why you ask me about experiments in concentration camps since you know, and the prosecution in the person of Mr. Hardy has expressly admitted that I not only objected to experiments in concentration camps, but even on experimenting on persons condemned to death. You don't assume that since I protested against it in Himmler's time, now when I am confronted by you, I am not going to change sides and begin to defend experiments in concentration camps; that is asking a little too much. I said that before and that is my stand.
Q Well very well, very well, then we needn't spend any more time on Strong's experiments. Now are you ready to concede that the typhus experiments in Buchenwald were nothing but murder; as I have understood your testimony that is the way you described it in the meeting in May of 1943; is that right?
A No, that is a distortion of my words. At the meeting in 1943 I did not say that this was murder. I said that these were serious medical experiments, which had had results of great significance and this part of my statements has been printed and is available, but in spite of this, on the basis of medical ethics, I protested against the execution of such experiments and especially against the fact that Government agencies assigned such an enormous and unbearable burden to members of my profession. That is what I said. The fact that in addition to the experiments reported at the meeting of consulting physicians, conditions seemed to have prevailed or said to have prevailed at Buchenwald, according to the testimony of the witnesses here. Neither I, nor any other participants in this meeting had any knowledge, on the contrary we were repeatedly assured at that time that the subjects were persons who had been legally condemned to death. In spite of the fact that this assurance was given at the time and there are many living witnesses who can testify to it, nevertheless I protested. Although I admit that for many people who think differently than I do, the fact might be sufficient, the fact that a person is condemned to death and they say, "Well the man has to die anyhow, then it does not make any difference if he dies in a medical experiment or whether he is executed." But, as I say, I admit that other people can have this point of view, I am not the Pope who sets up general ethics. It is not my opinion and I expressed my opinion at the time.
Q Herr Professor, did you or did you not tell Gildemeister when you talked about Gildemeister's experiments, "We might as well set up an execution chamber here at the Robert Koch Institute?"
A Yes, that is exactly what I said and that meant if people condemned to death are used for dangerous medical experiments; then that is the same thing as an execution, that would be an execution section in the Robert Koch Institute if that were the general arrangement of the Government and I did not think that was very desirable.
Q Did your witness Schmidt here before this court room, or not, testify that as he understood your objection, you were objecting to murder; did he say that or didn't he?
A Yes, Mr. Hardy, by clever questioning, succeeded in bringing the witness to make this statement, but I must know better what I expressly said and if I talked about murder at the time, it was invented for the first time by the Prosecution here.
Q Well, whatever we invent, we now want you to ride one horse or the other. Let us assume for the moment, and I know it will tax you, that just a few of these experimental subjects were not condemned to death and further let us assume that they were not volunteers and not rushing forward and saying, "Yes, you can give me typhus." Now, would that constitute a murder in your judgment if against his will he was subjected to an infectious experiment with typhus and he died?
A That is a question of judicial definition. I do not know of a legal case of death in a medical experiment ordered by the Government and approved under the laws. I do not consider myself a legal expert so that I cannot give such a definition.
Q Well, in any event, we can at least conclude that you are not prepared in any event to defend the Buchenwald experiments; is that right?
A I objected to these experiments at the time and here in my direct examination I said what I know about the motives of the doctors who regulated these experiments.
Q And if it is a fact that Haagen killed 150 men in 1944 in Natzweiler, you are also not prepared to defend those either?
A I have already told you that in Haagen's experiments nobody died and that no proof has been given to the Tribunal here. I cannot discuss that here, that would be an argument and I was not allowed to present arguments during my direct examination, but I am quite willing to explain it to you.
When the Witness the morphia-eater Edith Schmidt was asked whether it was right that the fifty died, she said she would not, like to swear to it and thus she took back her testimony. If this testimony was true that fifty control persons died, because mortality in typhus is 30%, there would have to have been 160 control persons, that would mean 450 experimental subjects and then this would be an experiment of 600 persons. And your two witnesses from Natzweiler, although they were in the camp, they did not hear anything about such experiments. Mr. Hell became very excited when you tried to say that he heard something about infection with typhus. He said, "No, I did not say anything about typhus infections. I only said as injections had been given a typhus epidemic in the camp break out sometime later." The witness Grandjean said there was a typhus epidemic was in the camp and the block with the typhus patients had been completely shut off.
A. It is nothing to wonder at. Typhus wards are shut off very carefully every where and he concluded from that if this block was shut off that experiments were being carried out.
Q. You and your defense counsel can reserve arguments about the truth of the witness Schmidt's testimony at the conclusion of the trial. I do not wish to take up any of the Tribunal's time at this time in arguing about whether or not you believe the testimony of the witness Schmidt, and if not, why not.
A. I want to avoid that. I said so twice but since you insist always on a statement is proved it is not true. I had to answer it.
Q. Herr Professor, now you are intelligent enough to know I put a hypotheitical question to you. I was asking you to give certain assumptions and I was trying to bring out in a clear manner your attitude toward these experiments. Now you don't want the court to be confused about how you feel about an experiment, assuming certain facts, we understand you dispute certain of these facts, but be that as it may, it is important for the Prosecution, the Tribunal and the defense to know your attitude toward a given experiment, however, much we may dispute the facts, but sincy you persist in refusing to exhibit your attitude we will proceed.
A. You understand I have no inclination to discuss hypothetical assumptions here about things with which I am charged by you. I should prefer to discuss facts. Discussions of hypothetical questions ore very interesting, but not in the situation in which I find myself at the moment.
Q. Let's go back to the malaria experiments. What contact did you have with Schilling in 1941?
A. During my direct examination I testified that in 1941 I saw reports about Schilling's malaria work in Italy on behalf of the Italian government and with the support of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, and then either at the end of 1941 or the beginning of 1942 I gave an opinion, a written opinion on an application which Professor Schilling had sent to State Secretary Conti, or rather to the Reich Ministry of Interior. Then I saw Professor Schilling in 1941 personally. I do not believe, I am not certain, whether he was in Germany again at that time, but I can't deny it with certainty under oath, because after all that was six years ago.
Q. Did you supply him any material while he was working in Italy?
A. No, nothing.
Q. Who was Fraulien Von Falkenberg?
A. You mean Fraulein Von Valkenhayn?
Q. No, I mean Fraulien Von Falkenberg.
A. I don't know any Fraulien Von Falkenberg.
Q. You are sure you didn't supply Schilling with any material in 1941?
A. I can't remember it. It might have been done by my department without my knowledge. Then, of course, I would take the responsibility for it, but I have not learned of it up until now. My assistants did not tell me anything about it, if it happened. If you can prove it happened, I shall, of course, assume responsibility for it, even if it was done without my knowledge.
Q. Well, it is not terribly Important, but let's let you have a look at Document No. 1756. In the mean time when did this incident occur about your giving material to Schilling, after he had set up his institute at Dachau?
A. I beg your pardon, I didn't understand your question.
Q. When did you give Schilling material after he had gone to Dachau?
A. I cannot give any information about that myself. I have to depend on the testimony of my assistant, Von Falkenhayn, and my secretary Block. My secretary Block testified, here that it was the end of 1941, but I would assume that she is mistaken about that, since Miss Von Falkenhayn testified that this material was given in the year 1942. I think the latter is more likely.
Q. Document No. 1756 will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 486 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that number?
MR. MCHANEY: 486.
BY MR. MCHANEY:
Q. Isn't there a Fraulien Von Falkenberg mentioned in this letter of yours to Schilling, dated 3 February, 1941?
A. No, in the German copy of the document which you showed to me, it says Fraulien Von Falkenhayn.
Q. That is a mistake then in the English translation.
A. Fraulien Von Falkenhayn was an assistant in my department. She had formerly worked for Professor Schilling. There is an affidavit from her. Since I have this letter I can give you some information about the matter. Professor Schilling wanted to have a serological reaction in malaria, the so-called reaction according to Henry, that is a reaction which is carried out for the purpose of malaria diagnosis. As in the antigen reaction, in this reaction the spleen of dead persons is used in the diet of malaria.
Professor Schilling apparently wrote to me to find out whether I as head of the tropical medical department was in a position to obtain a spleen from a corpse where the patient had died of malaria. I answered saying that such material would hardly be available in Berlin. Malaria was very rare in Berlin and consequently deaths from malaria were also very rare. The only cases of this type occurred in insane asylums, in the treatment of paralytics. It is well known that the first work of Wagner Jauregg shows that in the course of malaria treatment that paralysis deaths occur, just as death occurs following operations, and such malaria deaths, of course, occurred in Berlin insane asylums. As far as I can remember the matter my assistants contacted various pathological institutes in Berlin and asked in case such an autopsy occurred there that the spleen should be preserved so that it could be sent to Professor Schilling. This was what this letter was about.
Q. Did you ever supply any to him?
A. As far as I can recall in the coarse of several months one or two such cases occurred and the material was sent to Schilling, but I can't say for certain today.
Q. Well you are now qualifying at least the answer you gave to my earlier question as to whether you gave him any material in 1941, isn't that right?
A. I beg your pardon. I didn't understand the question.
Q. I say you now wish to qualify the answer you gave me a few moments before you saw the letter to the effect that you had not given him any material in 1941. You now state you did in fact give him some after having seen the letter.
A. Yes, I am sorry. My attention was entirely devoted to the question of the malaria parasite strains and mosquitoes, but the matter of negotiations between Schilling and the pathological institute in Berlin, I did not think of that.
Q. Let's go back to what we were discussing. You stated that although Frau Block, said that the malaria eggs were supplied Schilling in the latter part of 1941, you think probably it was 1942?
A. Yes, that is what I said. Perhaps I may correct myself. When you speak of Malaria eggs you mean anophele eggs probably. There are no malaria eggs.
Q. Yes that is right.
A. I am inclined to agree that Von Falkenhayn and Block think differently. I think that Von Falkenhayn was right and that it was in 1942.
Q. Did you know anything about this before it was sent?
A. I can't remember it. I don't believe so. As far as I remember I was informed of it by Fraulien Von Falkenhayn, in the meantime after I was given a letter from Professor Schilling that the mosquitoes were thriving in Dachau.
Q. Did you thereafter issue orders that no more material was to be sent to Schilling, is that right?
A. I did not issue a precise order. I said since we ourselves were using so many mosquitos I didn't want any more material to be sent to Mr. Schilling because I was not convinced of the scientific value of his work. But, Fraulein von Falkenhayn in her testimony says that there was further correspondence with Fraulein Lange. I have not been able to find this correspondence and I can't clear up the question completely. I have to rely fully on my assistant in this respect and I can't answer from my own knowledge. In our first conversation on the subject when I told you that Schilling got anopheles eggs from us, which you didn't know at the time, I did not tell you that he got a malaria strain from my department. I didn't know that at the time. I learned it just a short time ago from Fraulein von Falkenhayn. That was not in the affidavit. Apparently she was afraid of some misgivings and sent a letter to that effect to my lawyer. I am not so timid. I am not afraid to tell you about it.
Q. In other words you did supply a Rose strain to Schilling?
A. No. As I said in direct examination the Rose strain could not come from my department because we didn't have any strain with the name Rose. Where this strain with the name Rose comes from is a puzzle to me. I don't know of any Rose strain in malaria literature. But I don't think there is any point in quarreling about this name. The information given by Fraulein von Falkenhayn, which I believe fully, that a malaria strain is given - this is quite sufficient - and no difference whether it is called Rose or whether a Greece strain, or whether some other name.
Q. Your witness, Frau Block, testified you had no correspondence with Schilling in 1942 and 1943, as I recall. Is that right?
A. That is what Frau Block said. I myself would not have been so definite in my testimony if you asked me the same question. I would say I can't answer that question definitely. I only know one thing, that I never corresponded with Professor Schilling on the subject of his work.
Whether Schilling and I ever exchanged letters in those years I don't know since I don't have my files and such a rare correspondence as that - any information about it, whether he wrote a certain letter five or six years ago - he says "I would like to look that up in my files." Unfortunately I cannot do so but perhaps you would be kind enouh if you have copies of such a letter to make it available to me. You have my files and they are much more easily available to you than to me. For example, I am trying to find my malaria opinion from the year 194l. That was in the same file cabinet from which you got the record of the typhus meeting 29 December 1941 in the Ministry of Interior.
Q. You overestimate the Prosecution, Herr Professor, but we needn't dwell on that. Now, is your memory good enough to tell us how long you continued to furnish Schilling with material for his Dachau experiments. You say that somewhere along in 1942 you told them not to send any more. Are you clear about it?
A. Yes, I think I can remember reliably.
Q. Well, when did this malaria strain go down?
A. I am sorry I can't hear you.
Q. When did you send him the malaria strain?
A. I don't know. Fraulein von Falkenhayn merely told me that the malaria strain was given to Schilling. I don't know when. She didn't mention that in her letter to Dr. Fritz.
Q. Let's look at Document NO-1752. This will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 487 for identification. Suppose you read the letter aloud, Professor?
A. "Prof. Claus Schilling "Dachau, 4 April 1942 "3K, Hospital for Inmates "To Prof.
Dr. Rose "Berlin - Fohrerstrasse 2 "Robert Koch Institute "Dear Colleague:
"I inoculated a person intracutaneous with Sporocoides from the salivary glands of a female anopheles you sent me. For the second inoculation I do not have the Sporocoides material because I do not possess the "Strain Rose" in the anopheles yet. If you should find it possible to send me in the next days a few anopheles infected with "Strain Rose" (with the last consignment two out of ten mosquitoes were infected) I would have the possibility of continuing this experiment and I would naturally be very thankful to you for this new support of my work.
"The mosquito breeding and the experiments are proceeding satisfactorily, I am working now on six tertiary strains. I remain with hearty greetings and "Heil Hitler "Yours truly "signed - Claus Schilling"
Q. Schilling apparently thought there was a "Strain Rose."
A. Yes. That is indicated by the letter. That clears up the matter. He must have renamed this strain which came from my department and called it Rose. That is very unusual. Normally a malariologist would not do that.
Q. Are those your initials on the bottom of this letter, "L. g. RO 17/4"?
A. Yes that indicates that 13 days after the letter was mailed, 12 days after it arrived at the Robert Koch Institute, I saw it. There is also the file note "Settled EVF. That is Erna von Falkenhayn on the 17 April 1942. I find that in spite of my instructions to the department Fraulein von Falkenhayn still sent mosquitoes to her old boss although she denies it today but I should like to emphasize that, of course, I am responsible for what Fraulein von Falkenhayn did even if she didn't tell me about it.
Q. Well, you saw the letter on the 17 April 1942. Did you reaffirm your instructions that no more material was to be sent to Schilling?
A. I can't tell you today. That is quite possible. It is not even certain that I was in the Robert Koch Institute when I saw the letter. It is much more likely that Mrs. Block brought this letter to my home where such things were generally settled. And, from the fact that it had been dealt with ten days before you see that such letters were opened by my secretary.
Q. I thought we would be a bit generous with Frau Block and assume she hadn't seen the letter since she was so firm in the testimony that you hadn't corresponded with Schilling during these years.
Did you ever send Schilling any atroparvus eggs?
A. Yes. That is anopheles eggs which he got from us . As a type of anopheles in my laboratory I had anopheles eggs maculipenis atroparvus.