A. Yes, He even said that they lasted till the beginning of July.
Q. That's right. Well now, here we have a strange thing. Defendant Ruff Document Book, this is Exhibit 10, Document No. 6, in the Document Book Ruff No. 1, which is the affidavit of Dr. Max Matthes. On page 22 of the Ruff Document Book, the second paragraph, Dr. Matthes says as follows: "Only at the time of my conversations with Dr. Romberg, did I also learn that a low pressure chamber had come back from Dachau. According to my recollection, the low pressure chamber must have come back to the Institute in May, 1942. I can remember the date because after the return of the low pressure chamber I was ordered by Dr. Ruff to take a trip to Cologne in order to procure spare parts. I made this trip, and on that occasion I was in my home town of Bonn. That was in the time from 1 June to 10 June, 1942, so that the low pressure chamber must have been returned to the Institute in May, 1942." Now, here is a representative of Ruff's getting spare parts between the dates 1 June and 10 June to repair a low pressure chamber, and you recall that Mr. Neff said that he sabotaged the chamber in the latter part of May, and that Dr. Rosenberg, was two weeks getting the spare parts to return to Dachau to repair said chamber and that he returned about the middle of June. Now, isn't this coincidental, Doctor?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. It certainly is, isn't it?
A. But I think I can explain it. The barometer was repaired in Berlin by the Kutz firm which repaired barometers and which had supplied the barometer in the first place. And Matthes' trip to Bonn -
Q. To Cologne. He was in Bonn, his home -
A. Yes, Bonn was his home town. His trip to Cologne had nothing to do with the repair of the barometer. If I remember correctly, Ruff would probably have known this better -- the firm which undo the pumps was located in Cologne, pumps for low pressure chambers.
Q. What were you getting spare parts for if the low pressure chancer was in good condition when you brought it back to Berlin? What did you need parts for at that time? That was an unnecessary trip to take a man from his home town and send him all the way to Cologne to get parts when they weren't needed.
A. The parts were needed. I do not know .....
Q. You stated here just a minute ago that the chamber was in good condition. Now, let's make up our minds, Doctor.
A. I don't have to make up my mind. The pumps which Matthes picked up in Cologne -- I don't even know whether they were for this low pressure chamber or whether they were needed for one of the other mobile low pressure chamber which were also in operation. This work book of Fohlmeister which was submitted here, it shows that there were several low pressure chambers in Berlin. That book mentions a low pressure chamber at the time when the other chamber was at Dachau. It was still under construction and the pumps were probably for this ether chamber. If you have the book there -- that work book -- you can see that clearly.
Q. Well now, let's discuss another section of this low pressure chamber transfer. Who gave you the authority, and Ruff the authority to remove the low pressure chamber from Dachau to Berlin on the 20th day of May, 1942?
A. Who authorized Ruff?
Q. Yes.
A. Probably that was done with the medical Inspectorate just like the transfer down to Dachau, in order to have travel orders. In this case, it was a little different because it was sent by railroad.
Q. That's right. He couldn't remove it without authority from above, could he? At least, that's what he tells us.
A. Take it out of Dachau?
Q. Yes.
Q. You didn't need permission from above, meaning from the Luftwaffe, so much as permission from Himmler and Rascher particularly, to get it out of Dachau.
Q. Well, you mean to say that Dr. Ruff could have removed the low pressure chamber from Dachau at any time he so saw fit?
A. No, he certainly couldn't.
Q. That's right. That's what he says. He couldn't.
A. Yes.
Q. Well now, let's look at Mr. Milch's letter on page 77 of Document Book Number 2. This happens to be dated the 20th of May, 1942. It is Document 343A-PS, Page 77 of the English. Now let's read this:
"Dear Wolffy:"
(It is addressed to SS-Obergruppenfuehror Karl Wolff from Field Marshal Milch.)
"In reference to your telegram of 12 May, our medical inspector reports to me that the altitude experiments carried out by the SS and Luftwaffe at Dachau have been finished. Any continuation of these experiments seems essentially unreasonable. However, the carrying out of experiments of some other kind, in regard to perils at high seas, would be important. These have been prepared in immediate agreement with the proper offices; Oberstabsarzt Weltz will be charged with the execution and Stabsarzt Rascher will be made available until further order in addition to his duties within the Medical Corps of the Luftwaffe. A change of these measures does not appear necessary, and an enlargement of the task is not considered pressing at this time.
"The low-pressure chamber will not be needed for these low-temperature experiments. It is urgently needed at another place and therefore can no longer remain in Dachau.
"I convey the special thanks.....etc."
Signed "Milch".
Now, here on the 20th of May, "Milch is just beginning to discuss the fact that it should no longer remain in Dachau. He thinks it is still in Dachau, doesn't he? You haven't received orders to remove it yet. How did you remove it? Let's turn to the next letter, Doctor.
A. I removed the chamber by saying to Rascher, who wanted to carry on the experiments, "Rascher, there's no point in your trying to keep the chamber here any longer.
You will only succeed in doing so for two or three weeks, at the most. It will be better if we stop with the chamber now and perform new experiments later", and Rascher agreed to this. I called Ruff up and said, "Ruff, I've managed it. We can take tie chamber away." Ruff sent the drivers down and the chamber was taken out of Dachau, and that's how it happened.
Q. Well now, here we have another letter, fortunately, dated 4 June 1942, on page 78, Document Book Number 2, and this is from Milch to Hippke. It reads as follows:
"According to the agreement with the Reichsfuehrer SS the lowpressure air chamber for experiments in the neighborhood of Munich is still to be available for two months longer.
"Moreover, the Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher is, in addition to his tests in the Luftwaffe, to be on duty for the present for the purposes of the Reichsfuehrer SS.
"Heil Hitler, Yours, Milch."
He sent a copy to SS Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff.
Now, doesn't it appear that Walter Neff's memory is much better than yours?
A. No, I know very well that the chamber was already gone at that time; that the high altitude experiments had been concluded. That is, in part, clear from the letter which Rascher himself wrote to Hippke.
Q. Let's turn to the next letter, NO.284., on page 79. Just turn the page:
"Dear Dr. Rascher:
"Your letter of 5 June 1942..."
Now we're up to the 5th of June, and, according to these documents, the chamber is still there.
"Your letter of 5 June 1942, to Reichsfuehrer-SS was handed SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff, Chief of Reichsfuehrer-SS Personal Staff, for further action, on whose behalf I wish to inform you that in keeping with an order of Field Marshal Milch the low-pressure chamber is to remain available an additional two months for experiments.
Field Marshal Milch also ordered that in addition to your experiments for the Luftwaffe, also you are to continue working until further notice for the purposes of Reichsfuehrer-SS."
Now, according to this letter -- not according to your opinion, but according to this letter, the chamber is still at Dachau, isn't it?
A. No, I don't see that. The letter is nothing but......
Q. Well, we'll let the Tribunal decide. Tell me.....
A. May I say something?
Q. Certainly. Go ahead.
A. This letter is merely one to pass on the letter from Milch which has just been read. That is, the letter of the 4th of June, Exhibit 36.
Q. Right.
A. And Milch writes that the chamber is to stay for two more months.
Q. That's right.
A. Whether Milch, when he wrote this letter, actually knew that the experiments had already been stopped and wrote this letter nevertheless; or whether he didn't know it, I can't judge.
Q. Yes, but you couldn't remove this chamber -- either you or Ruff -- without the permission of Hippke or Milch. Don't forget that. You couldn't remove it. You didn't have the authority to take it out of there after you had one death occur -- to step these experiments of Rascher. You had to leave it there because you would need a superior order. Now, here are, more or less, orders telling you to leave it there for two months, didn't they?
A. The higher orders needed to remove the chamber had to come from Himmler through Rascher. He had to agree to returning the chamber.
Milch himself, or Hippke, as the letter of the 20th of May shows, could say that the chamber was not needed by them. What had to happen happened -- that Rascher approached Milch, through Himmler, and asked to be able to keep it longer and Milch writes, probably knowing that the chamber had already left: "Yes, you can keep it longer." Besides, as far as the breaking off of the experiments is concerned, which according to the appearance of the documents, lasted two months beyond the 4th of June -- that was far into July -- I should like to refer to the letter of Rascher of the 5th of June, 1942, Document No. 283, Exhibit 82. Rascher writes: "A few days ago I was called into Hippke's office for a conference When I told him that the report on all the experiments was not available yet, he did not demand any report." Rascher himself writes on the 13th of June: "A few days ago I saw Hippke", that is, let us say, on the 12th of June, and he also writes "the complete report is not finished", which indicates that the experiments were already finished at that time.
Q. Of course, that can be interpreted that the experiments were not finished and you had to finish them up before you could finish the report. There are two ways of interpreting that, Doctor.
Now, tell me, Doctor Romberg, after the chamber finally did get back to Berlin and the experiments were concluded -- whether it be the time you state or the time that is borne out by the documents and the testimony of Walter Neff -- then, as you have pointed out in your direct examination, Mr. Rascher received an assignment from Himmler later in the year, that is, in the fall or winter of the year, and one of these assignments, you have ably pointed out, was again research with low pressure chamber and in the same field. Now, did Rascher ever get a low pressure chamber again? In late 1942 or 1943?
A. No, he did not.
Q. You have stated that he couldn't get one all over Germany, didn't you? You stated on direct examination that he tried to get one and he couldn't get one?
and he couldn't get one?
A. No, I did not say that. In my direct examination I merely quoted the individual documents showing Rascher's efforts to get a new low pressure chamber.
Q. Well, he didn't get one, did he?
A. To my knowledge and to the knowledge of the Medical Inspectorate which we contacted later, he did not receive any chamber.
Q. Did he get your chamber?
A. Ours? No.
Q. He must have gotten some chamber because he conducted experiments in 1943 with a chamber. Here in the Sievers Diary which is Document No. 538 contained on page 63 of Document Book Number 3, is an entry under date of April 6, 1943, the eighth entry made by Sievers reads as follows:
"Continuation of the low pressure chamber experiments." Now, it appears that he had some sort of chamber down there, doesn't it? Was it yours?
A. What was the date of this entry?
Q. I believe I said the 6th of April 1943, and it is in the Sievers Diary. No need to look at it, Doctor. I quoted it to you.
A. No, I don't have it here anyhow. I just want to say that might have something to do with Document NO-270, Exhibit 110, in Document Book 3, where Rascher tells about his conference with Hippke. Again, he says that he wants to conduct low pressure chamber experiments with me at the same time when he was in Berlin. Anyhow, he went to see Sievers and again told him that he wanted to continue the low pressure chamber experiments, just as he had told Hippke.
Q. Well, let's go on, Doctor. Now, Dr. Romberg, you, and your chief, Dr. Ruff, maintain that all you were interested in was what the title of your official report said: "Rescue from High Altitudes." And that you merely took poeple up end down, quickly, up by explosive decompression, and down by free fall, or parachute and that you were not interested in anything else. Is that right? That was your primary interest - in simple language.
A. That was our primary interest.
Q. Well, now, I want to turn to Document Book 2 again, page 91. This is Document NO-402, your report. This will be on page 16 of the German; not of the Document Book, but of the German document itself.
Now, on page 16 of the original, the lost paragraph on the page, you say there in the report -- and by the way I might ask you - that was your signature on the report, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q. You say there: "In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily failures (paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon posthypoxemic twilight state remains somewhat of a riddle." What's the riddle?
A. One could not say exactly whether these severe failures were caused alone by the lack of oxygen, or whether they might have something to do with the bends disease - caisson disease - or the bends disease.
Q. So, then, you were interested, according to your own report, in that problem of gas or air bubbles. And your friend Rascher obliged, supplied the answer to the riddle, didn't he? He killed a few people for you, right in your presence. You were there. You watched the autopsy. He showed you the bubbles in the brain, in the brain's blood vessels - the bubbles which were caused by the decompression. That was the answer, wasn't it...to the riddle? You thought it was.
A. No. First of all, Rascher was not my friend. And "bends", as quoted here in connection with the decompression which were experienced because this was a well known problem which had often been complained of, and there existed quite a bit of literature, it was known particularly by the Navy in regard to caisson disease... it was not really no new problem. The finding of air bubbles in an autopsy is not in itself an explanation of these failure symptoms. One might be able to determine that in a very careful examination if one could prove air bubbles in a certain center. But, as far as I know that is very difficult or even impossible because air embolism occurs in surgical cases too, for example, if a vein is cut during an operation, it also occurs --
Q. I think we are familiar with all that, Doctor. The point I am trying to bear out is that I am not trying to indicate that you and Ruff made Rascher do this, or made Rascher kill people, but you let him do it, and you were very glad to have the answer to your riddle. You state in your paper that neither you nor Ruff after the murder saw to it that Rascher was indicted far murder, did you? You needed that information, and you have it here in your report.
A. No, that of course is not right. I must object to that strenuously. The observations which Rascher made, which he gives in his interim reports, he never made them public in any way, and never supplied them to the Luftwaffe, to Ruff, or to me in any way.
He reformed......
Q. Well, Doctor, you go on a little bit in this document, where you and Ruff say...you and Rascher in this report... on the next page, an excerpt: "It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack." Your chief, Ruff, now has admitted on the stand that pressure drop sickness does not occur if one takes people merely up and down quickly, but that a person has to stay up for some time to develop this pressure drop sickness. Well, who were these people that you refer to in this report when you state "It appeared often." Who do you mean by that?....just you and Rascher? Certainly you don't mean just the two of you.
A. I am referring, for one thing, also to the experiment which was used for clarification, and also to the slow sinking experiments where these symptoms occurred, which were not clear to us. And as an attempt to explain these peculiar symptoms this experiment was used where, without any lack of oxygen, when sustained for a long time -it says forty minutes there -- at thirteen kilometers, a similar severe condition occurred with paralysis of both legs and interruption of the sight which lasted for two hours. A similar condition as in the slow sinking experiments where there was really only a lack of oxygen, and really there could be no bends to judge by the time, but just because the serious symptoms in this one experimental subject, and the serious symptoms on myself were so similar, this experiment on myself is quoted hero only for this reason.---
Q. That's right. We will come to that. We will go into that more specifically.
A. ---And it is said "it appeared often."
Q. Right.
A. That remained open. We were not able to explain it quite. We meant we tried to explain these symptoms.
Q. Well, Doctor, you and Ruff both here have claimed that your report merely concerned itself with rapid ascent and immediate descent. Now, that was already withdrawn by Ruff when he was on the stand when I confronted him with this part of the report, the selfexperiment which you and Rascher had performed because you and Rascher had stayed up forty minutes -- I think you stayed up forty minutes and Rascher ten minutes -- and then you include this in your report even though this type of research, right here does not fall in with what you claim was your problem at all, does it?
A. No, it does not. Therefore....
Q. That 's right.
A. That is why we didn't perform these experiments on experiment subjects...
Q. And further, Ruff admitted that it was the most dangerous experiment and if it had not been interrupted it might have been fatal, didn't he? Do you think the same as Ruff did?
A. According to my knowledge today, yes. At the time we didn't know about this death yet, which had occurred in such longlasting experiments at a certain altitude. Ruff learned that in the AeroMedical Center. This knowledge originated in 1946.
Q. How many times did you and Rascher go through this same type of experiment? Only that one time?
A. This experiment - this extremely long one?
Q. Yes, that one.
A. It was performed only once, I am sure, but otherwise we stayed up for a considerable time in other experiments. Then there were minor disturbances.
Q. Then you and Rascher would have only exposed yourselves to such a danger as that? Is that it?
A. We did not deliberately expose ourselves to this danger to make an extreme experiment ,but we stayed up there because otherwise in the two or three ascents perday which we usually performed, and afterwards in the second or third ascent we had these symptoms which did not occur the first time.
And we wanted then to determine whether the symptoms were caused by going up three times a day,and, say, ten minutes at a time, or whether the same would occur if one goes up for a half hour.
Q. That has been explained to us fully by Dr. Ruff. But you actually went up to these two heights, 13,000 or 13,500 feet one you stayed there for an extensive length of time on one occasion only. Is that right?
A. That experiment took place at 13 or 13.5 km. That is what it says here.
Q. Yes; and you did it only once?
A. I can't say that with certainty, but we did not do that too often. I would not know of this experiment at all if it were not mentioned in this report.
Q. You just said you did not do it very often; what do you mean when you say here; "It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness (aeroembolism) had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack?" Now, doctor, isn't it that you simply in this report did not want to mention the others, because they had died, since you and Rascher never interrupted an experiment because of pain felt by subjects and when it says it appeared often, if certainly did, in Rascher's work at least.
A. I did not quite understand the question, but in any case, "this happened often" that means that the symptoms in the slow sinking experiments, paralysis or interruption of sight, occured that these symptoms were familiar to those in our own experiments.
Q. Well, now you don't deny the fact that Rascher, supposedly on his own initiative, conducted experiments to determine this gas bubble situation and air-embolism and pressure drop sickness or whatever you want to call it. He did that on the people at Dachau on his own initiative and performed autopsies on them; you saw the autopsies? He did that, didn't he?
A Of course, he did perform experiments with fatal results, that is proved by the Documents and he apparently had several points in mind, which he wanted to clarify. He actually told me himself that the E.K.G. and Bends was one of the things, he wanted to clear up, he proved they were air bubbles and he wanted to attack this problem, but that is a field which had nothing to do with ours.
Q. But neither did this experiment, which you conducted. You admitted here right now that this one experiment had nothing to do with your field, We'll go on with this report. In the next sentence you state, in the same paragraph:
"In this connection, the subjective accounts made by the authors in two experiments, each mas interesting. Now what happened to the objective findings, they are only the subjective findings; what happened to the objective findings?
A. Our own observations? I cannot say exactly. My disturbances were described according to the records that Rascher kept. He wrote down my symptoms, I, myself, of course, don't know that in detail. I was so seriously affected, even afterward, that I did not know exactly what had happened.
Q. Well then, you did not know, whether or not you had pressure drop sickness, did you?
A. No, during the experiment, I certainly did not know it.
Q. Well, now here are some tell-tale marks of your connection in that pressure drop sickness which played a definite part. On Page 18 of this report wherein you state: this is in the English copy at the top of page 92, the first paragraph, the last phrase in the last sentence, Your Honor, - where you state there and I quotes "so that the idea of a combination of pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely suggested." Now, you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness, than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you.
A. No, the air bubbles which one sees in an autopsy are not proof of this, they don't necessarily have anything to do with it. For example, if in a case of embolism, if it is caused in draining a lung, besides the small blood vessels arc generally cut and gas embolism is caused in the blood stream and sometimes this occurs in fatal operations, but it is not necessarily true that people who die of gas embolism during an operation, have, or must have such symptoms.
One cannot say that the picture of gas embolism, necessarily leads to tho symptoms. On the other hand, one cannot say, if there arc these symptoms in a death. In an autopsy, one must have to find bubbles or if they are found if they have anything to do with the symptoms, but the symptoms are not necessarily connected with these bubbles.
Q. But, you say here, I quotes: That the idea of a combination of pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack is definitely suggested." Now, you could not have concluded that from your subjective experiences could you?
A. Oh, yes, bends was not a new problem in aviation medicine, the whole field of bends or caisson disease, or whatever you want to call it, is a very old problem. In the Navy it is called Caisson-disease and it is called the same thing in America, I believe.
Q. Now from your subjective experiences you could have stated that was due to oxygen intoxication, paradoxical effect of oxygen administration, or anything else in the world; couldn't you?
A. I don't think I understand the question, would you mind repeating it?
Q. I said, you could have from you subjective experiments you related here, when you expedited the subjective experiences, I said what you see in this report, from the face of the report itself and on the face of your experiences; that this condition, which you describe, could have been due to anything else in the world, it could be due to oxygen intoxication, to a paradoxical effect of oxygen administration or any other cause or reason for it; is that true?
A. No, lack of oxygen could not have been the cause in our self experiment, which is described here, and the time of lack of oxygen was only about 5 seconds.
The lack of oxygen was certainly not the only reason for those symptoms. On the other hand it was noteworthy that in these experiments there was paralysis and interference with sight after these five seconds of lack of oxygen. It was a unique condition; First there were for complaints and then 5 seconds of lack of oxygen and then suddenly these serious interruptions with the sight and paralysis, for this reason this circumstance is used to attempt to use the unique conditions in these low sinking experiments. Now Caisson disease was nothing new, some effect of it, for example, the disturbance of the eye sight, the central loss of sight in the middle of the field of vision, that is suffered by almost everyone who was in the low pressure chamber frequently and the only explanation was, there must be small air bubbles, which don't even have to be in the circulatory system, which can be anywhere in the tissues and which lead to pain, which is called bends. Then such cases are repeated in the tissues, it loads to paralysis and when in the brain it leads to disturbance in the sight. That was know, and particularly Ruff and Becker-Freyseng worked on this problem in the medical center, because this matter had not been cleared up. It was claimed, and known that suck various complaints occurred, but it mas not clear what caused the symptoms and this had not been cleared up by the fatalities which occurred repeatedly in the case of Caisson sufferers, if they are not taken to a hospital in time.
Q. Well, doctor, all that information is of course valuable, but be that as it may, here we have a report. A report is, as I understand, a listing of what a re searcher found out during the course of the research work.
Now you have made those statements in this report, which is a report of your work at Dachau, listed what you discovered there and you have stated that you have found this phenomena, this combination of the pressure drop phenomena with the phenomena of oxygen lack and you say it is suggested; how did you determine that; were you just guessing, just guessing?
A It was not "just guessing", it was a theory which could be used to explain the matter and for that reason, I did write; "it often seemed that the lack of oxygen was combined in some instances with pressure drop sickness". That is a scientific hypothesis.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact, doctor, you didn't have to guess, did you? All you had to do was ask Rascher?
A Rascher in his experiments as we know from the interim reports did not learn anything in this respect. No results are mentioned in the interim reports in that direction. Besides Rascher did not inform me of there result of his own work.
Q He didn't have to inform you -- you stood there and watched it. He didn't have to inform you at all?
A Yes, I watched one autopsy. That was my duty.
Q Sure, that certainly was. Now Ruff has admitted here that the atmospheric difference between the ground level and the altitudes at which you were operating was not sufficient to make any experienced aviation medical man to think of pressure drop sickness. That is something akin to the caisson disease, the bends and so forth. Now, wasn't it Rascher's air bubbles and his dead men that made you think of it?
A No, certainly not. It was the observed disturbances gave rise to this thought. I have said that such air bubbles can appear and often do appear without any such disturbances.
Q Well now, doctor, when again did the first death occur?
AAbout the 1st of April, I said.
Q Now, how did the death occur? Did they take the man up too high, and have him stay there too long. Tell us the particulars of why that man died?
A It was an experiment at, I beleive 13 or 14 kilometers. Rascher obviously stayed too long at the same altitude so that probably there was a fatal air embolism which caused death.
Q Well, now at this first death, how did you happen to be there?
A I already said that Rascher frequently performed experiments for which he had an assignment from Himmler, which he was performing in addition to our joint experiments, and sometimes I watched these experiments, just as in our institute I sometimes watched the contrifugal experiments of Ruff, although I was not working on them myself.
Q Well you were not assigned to watch these, were you?
A No, I didn't.
Q How did you know Rascher was going to perform an experiment at this time?
A I didn't know it beforehand. Generally, I was at the experimental station and at the low pressure chamber anyhow and Rascher carried out experiments with a different man, outside of our series.
Q And hadn't you just carried on an experiment before and within the same period, with one of your men?
A No doubt. We carried out experiments every day on our own people.
Q That is strange then. You probably carried out a couple of experiments, and then Rascher said, wait a minute now, Dr. Romberg, we will have an experiment for Himmler. This has nothing to do with you, step aside, you get out of the way a bit, I am going to experiment on this fellow for Himmler. Is that what he said to you?
A No, it wasn't like that.
Q Then how did you differentiate between the Luftwaffe experiments and the SS experiments?
A I know what experiments I performed myself.
Q Yes, but you were collaborators, weren't you? You were ordered by Ruff to go down there and collaborate with Rascher, weren't you?
A Yes, for these experiments for rescue from high altitude. We worked together on that.
Q Now these three deaths that took place, how did the second death occur?
A The second death?
Q Yes.
AAs far as I recall that was an experiment at a much higher altitudes, higher than 14, it might have been 17, and probably there was again a fatal embolism. After a certain time at this altitude the subject suddenly died.