Q. And that is where you were at the time Rascher's second death and the third death occurred with his experimental subjects?
A. Yes.
Q. How far would you estimate that you were sitting from the controls?
A. About two or two and a half meters.
Q. Who was manipulating the controls at the time?
A. Rascher was carrying out his own experiments, and consequently manipulated the levers of the EKG, and the other instruments himself, when he was doing the experiment.
Q. Was there anyone there helping him at the time?
A. No, no one.
Q Where were you, when that experimental subject was first brought into the chamber; were you sitting in the anti-room working up your data?
A When the experimental subjects came up, yes, I was certainly in the low pressure van.
Q Yes, I am talking about the experimental subject who came there then?
A Yes.
Q They gave you the impression of men, who understood they were there as volunteers for high altitude experiments that were being carried on within proper limits?
A Yes.
Q How long was it after the completion of your experiment; let us consider now the day the second experimental subject met his death; how long a time was it between the conclusion of your experiments, the Ruff-Rombcrg experiments and the beginning of the Rascher experiments, wherein the experimental subject met his death?
A Rascher did not carry out the experiments right away, which led to the death. Before the fatal experiment, he carried out other experiments.
Q How many other experiments?
A I think in this case there were three.
Q Three experiments prior to the time of the experiments in which the man met his death?
A That is right.
Q How long had the second subject been in the chamber before he came to his death?
A I cannot tell you that for sure because I did not pay any attention.
Q How long were you in that anti-room after you completed your experiments writing up your report?
A I must have been there about one hour.
Q Then, during the course of the hour, two or three experiments were conducted, which had no fatal consequences and the fourth one began all within the period of an hour?
A Yes.
Q After each of those experiments were concluded, the ones that did not result in death; did Rascher make notes of what had happened to the test subjects?
A During the experiments Rascher wrote down his notes.
Q Wrote down the notes, watched the altitude gauge, observed the cardiogram, manipulated the pressure wheel and did everything necessary to carry out the experiments and to record the data?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember, who brought those experimental subjects that day to the chamber?
A I don't know for certain, but I believe it was an SS man from the camp who brought them.
Q Do you know where they came from?
A No, that I do not know.
Q Did they come from the same quarters that your ten or fifteen men came from?
A No, they came from somewhere in the camp.
Q Had you and Rascher had any discussion on that day -- by the way, what time was it that the death of the second experimental subject happened?
A In the late forenoon, I should say around noon.
Q So that you had completed your experiments then certainly by eleven o'clock of that morning?
A Yes, by that time we had concluded our own experiments.
Q Had you and Rascher had any discussion between the time of the conclusion of your experiments at eleven o'clock and the experiments when the second death occurred?
A No, we certainly did not talk with each other very much. I probably said I was going to evaluate my material there, but we did not, as I said, talk with each other very much.
Q Now, after this death occurred, the second death, how many experiments did you conduct on the same day after that on your own, the Ruff-Romberg experiments?
A I believe that I carried out no further experiments on that day.
Q What about the third death?
A The situation was similar. I do not know if this was also in the morning, but I believe it was. We had carried out our own experiments and Rascher did his subsequently.
Q Now, let us consider for a moment the occasion when you witnessed the death of one of Rascher's experimental subjects; the first death you say you witnessed during the latter part of April, 1942; did you know this experimental subject?
A No, I did not know him personally; he was one of Rascher's own subjects.
Q Had he been used by Rascher for any other experiments prior to that time?
A That I really cannot tell you, I did not know him, but it is quite possible that Rascher had used him for other ones.
Q Had you ever seen him before?
A No, I cannot recall that I had.
Q Did you know his name?
A No, I did not know his name.
Q Did you know his nationality?
A No, I heard him speaking and he spoke German with Rascher.
Q Was he one of the ten or fifteen men, who had been selected for the Ruff-Romberg experiments?
A No, he certainly was not.
Q Was he one of the 60 or 70 inmates who had first volunteered, from whom you had selected some ten or fifteen subjects?
A That I cannot say because I don't know whether he was one of them.
Q What time of day did this death happen?
A That I cannot say for certain, but I believe that it was around noon or after luncheon.
Q Had you conducted any experiments that day?
A Yes, we had.
Q How many?
A I really cannot tell you. At that time we had conducted a relatively large number of experiments, but I really cannot give you precise figures.
Q Did you conduct any on that day after the death?
A No, I don't believe so.
Q Do you remember whether or not the first experimental subject who died, was unconscious at the time he was taken from the low pressure chamber?
A No, when they were brought out, they were certainly dead, not simply unconscious.
Q I am talking about the first man.
A You mean in our own experiments or do you mean in Rascher's experiments.
Q I am talking about the Rascher experiments, that first man who came out of there, whom you say died; was he dead when taken from the chamber?
A Yes, he certainly was. He died at the high altitude or during the descent. I believe that he died while he was at the high altitude and died of air embolism.
Q Was that test suddenly brought to an end, or was it concluded as it would have been if a man would not have died?
A I don't know how long Rascher would have conducted this experiment, had the man not died.
Q Well, how did you or Rascher know that the man was dead while he was still in the low pressure chamber?
A I did not pay very close attention to this, but Rascher certainly saw this from the electro-cardigram and probably also from the respiration of the subject and for that reason brought him down from the high altitude.
Q In other words, those machines would not operate, they would go dead in effect because there was nothing to register; is that correct?
A What machines do you mean?
Q The electro-cardiogram.
A I did not lock at it very closely, but if the man was dead I assume there would be nothing to register.
Q That is what I am trying to get at; who took the first subject from the chamber?
A Rascher sent over to the morgue and two prisoners came with a stretcher and took him away.
Q Whom did he send to the morgue?
A So far as I knew, he sent Neff over to the morgue.
Q Was there anyone else around there at the time besides Neff?
A No, I don't think so.
Q Who was running the engines at the time?
A The controls ran throughout the entire experiment, the pumps did not have to be manipulated, only the air pressure was regulated, the access of air to the chamber and that regulated the altitude.
Q I understand. Was the mechanic around there at the time, Sabotta, or your unknown nan whose name you do not know?
A I really cannot tell you whether one of them was in the back of the van in the machine room. There was another truck next to the van, which contained the machines; now whether one of them was in there, then I don't know. The pumps operated, whether someone was there all the time or not. 7001
Q Well, if he was there you did not see him?
A No, I could not have seen him because he was inside the van.
Q When you began your experiments that morning, who started the engines and who was in charge of them for the Ruff-Romberg experiments?
A In the morning, someone, usually Sabotta or Neff, came around and set the motors in motion.
Q Do you remember who did it that morning?
A No, I don't remember.
Q Do you remember who was there as a mechanic at the time of the second death?
A No, I don't.
Q At the time of the third death?
A I also cannot say, it was certainly one of the three, but just who it was I don't know.
Q In the case of the second death; who took the man out of the chamber.
A The situation was the same. Rascher sent someone over to the morgue. The prisoners came from there with a stretcher and took away the corpse.
Q The same is true in regard to the third death?
A Yes.
Q And in each case, it would be Neff, Sobotta, or your unknown mechanic, the man whose name you do not remember?
A Who was at the pump, you mean, or who was sent over to the morgue?
Q Yes, who was sent to the morgue in each case.
A That was probably not Sobotta or the other, because they were busy with the motors. It was probably Neff or one of the others who belonged to that group. Sobotta and the other man were usually busy, as I said, with the pumps and motors and didn't run errands as often.
Q In other words, when Rascher conducted his experiments, he always had Neff there or Sobotta there to run errands or to do things of that sort, should it become necessary, is that correct?
A Practically, the men were always at the station. The room they lived in was only a few meters from the van so that actually they were always available and it sufficed simply to yell in order to get one of them.
Q In other words, if anything should happen in the chamber, then a simple yell would bring Sabotta or Neff or the other man to the chamber, because they lived only a very few meters from where the experiments were being conducted.
A Yes, they lived close by.
Q All of your experimental subjects lived right there so that you could have them as you needed them?
A Yes, that's right.
Q And you think that on the occasions of these deaths, if Neff or Sabotta was not at the pressure chamber or at the engine in the van, that Rascher simply yelled for someone in barracks close by to come out?
A He simply had to leave the van and go to the barracks and yell and somebody would surely come.
Q And you think that is what he did on each of these three occasions?
A Yes, that is what I believe.
Q Then it was a reasonable thing to assume that those experimental subjects knew that Rascher was conducting experiments, as well as yourself, and that he was conducting independent experiments?
A They certainly knew that.
Q And they knewthat sometimes you were there writing up your data at the same time that he had been conducting the experiments?
A Yes.
Q Has there any occasion when you acted as an experimental subject in the low pressure chamber while Rascher manipulated the controls from the outside?
A Yes, that happened several times.
Q When was that?
A When I went with the experimental subjects into the chamber for a slow sinking descent, for example from 12,000 or 13,000 kilometres, in order to watch the writing tests that they were doing. Then Rascher stayed outside and manipulated the chamber. I also carried out explosive decompression experiments during which I was inside the chamber and Rascher was outside. In the experiments described in the report, the experiments on myself, Rascher was inside but who was outside, I don't know, it can't have been Rascher in this case.
Q When you were inside was there anyone outside with Rascher, or was he doing the whole thing by himself?
A He was outside and took care of the machinery, yes.
Q No one was assisting him at the time?
A No, it wasn't necessary.
Q When was this?
A I was in several times.
Q Name the dates.
A I can't tell you really. I was in there in the beginning, when we made the experiments at twelve or thirteen thousand metres altitude and I was in there at the conclusion and several times in between, but I can't fix the precise days.
Q Were you in there as an experimental subject any time after you had seen the first, the second, or the third experimental subject in the Rascher experiment die?
A Yes -- I carried out an experiment at 19 kilometres, which certainly took place after the first fatality -- not after the second or third fatality, however.
Q And no one was at the controls but Dr. Rascher?
A That's right.
Q And you had full confidence in him at the time?
A I was confinced that in the experiments that we were carrying on continuously, nothing would happen, and for that reason I went in as an experimental subject.
Q What would have prevented Rascher from putting you through the same course that he put the experimental subject through?
A Today I wouldn't go in, now that I know what I know, but at that time I had no reason to assume that he was going to kill me in an experiment.
Q After he had already conducted one experiment in which, from your observation the experimental person would die, and you remonstrated with him after that, you were still willing to go back into the chamber, and did go back?
A In this experiment, I wasn't in a position to say death must occur. I would, however, say it was dangerous and that I myself would have interrupted the experiment. On the other hand, the experiment scheduled was a free falling experiment. In the experiment in which I participated, they exactly laid down how high I was to go and how far I was to fall. I was was examined on account of the experiences gained by the experiments that nothing would happen and I had no reason to believe that Rascher would suddenly change the program and change the descent in any way, so that something might happen.
Q Before either of these three deaths occurred, did Rascher show you an outline of the test upon which he was about to embark? In other words, as to the first experiment did he have a statement there of the kind of experiment he was going to conduct?
A I don't know whether he had one. At any rate, he didn't show it to me. He always said that these experiments did not concern me; that they were orders that he had received; and that I shouldn't worry about them. He did not let me in on that experiment, but kept me at a distance.
Q And that was also true in regard to the nature of the experiments at the second death and at the third death?
A Yes.
Q When was the first time that you conducted an experiment after you witnessed the death of the first experimental subject in Rascher's experiments in April?
A When, after that death, did I carry out an experiment in the frame work of my own program, you mean?
Q Of course, that's what I'm talking about.
A I certainly carried out experiments on the very next day and then I went to Berlin. I didn't go to Berlin on tho same day, but carried on the experiments further until my departure.
Q What was your purpose in going to Berlin?
A The reason was the death that had occurred. I told Rascher, however, that I wanted to visit my wife who was about to have a child.
Q Whom did you see in Berlin?
A First I went home; saw my family, of course. Then I went out to the DVL in Adlershof and saw Ruff.
Q What did you tell him?
A I told him that in these experiments that Rascher was carrying out, he had had a death yesterday or the day before; that I had seen from the electrocardiogram that it seemed to me asif the experiment should be interrupted and that I told him this. He, however, did not interrupt the experiment on my suggestion.
I told him that these experiments were nothing that I wanted to have anything to do with. Ruff was of the same opinion and we discussed how we could bring these experiments to an end.
Q. Did Ruff advise you to return to Dachau?
A. We talked about that at great length, about how we could best do what we wanted; but we both saw clearly that we could not simply tell Rascher or Himmler, for instance, that a fatality had occurred and consequently the experiments would have to stop. What we would have to do would be to bring our experiments to a conclusion and then take the chamber out and away from Dachau.
Q. When Rascher's experimental subject died in the low pressure chamber in April-that's the first subject--I believe you said he was taken to the morgue for the purpose of an autopsy. Where was the morgue in relation to the location of the low pressure chamber?
A. One had to go through another barracks and then through a long corridor leading through a camp street or a court. Exactly what distance that was I don't know precisely now. I estimate that it was approximately a hundred meters.
Q. On the day on the death, which you say occurred about midday, you had completed your experiments perhaps an hour prior to that time?
A. Yes, we carried out experiments in the morning. When we were through, I don't recall exactly.
Q. Then what did you do with your experimental subjects? They went back in the barracks?
A. Every one of our experimental subjects went back to the billets after the experiment was over.
Q. That billet was just several meters from the chamber?
A. Yes, that wasn't far at all.
Q. Neff, Sobotta, and yourother man whose name you don't know lived there?
A. Yes, they lived there too.
Q. How long after the death of the first subject was it before the autopsy took place?
A. I can hardly tell you that exactly; but I should think it was about half an hour later.
Q. Who was present?
A. Rascher, I, and the inmates from the pathological station, nobody else.
Q. Is that what you would call the dissection room, the inmates of dissection room?
A. Yes; yes, that's right.
Q. In other words, there were present at the autopsy you, Rascher, two men from the dissection room. Was Neff there?
A. No, I don't think so.
Q. Was Sobotta there?
A. No, I am sure Sobotta wasn't there. He had nothing to do with it.
Q. What was actually done at the autopsy?
A. It was a normal autopsy. The skull, the breast, and the abdominal cavity were opened.
Q. Is that all?
A. Yes, that was a complete autopsy. That is what is ordinarily done in an autopsy.
Q. Just open the breast, skull, and the abdominal cavity and your autopsy is over?
A. First the breast is opened; then the abdominal cavity is opened; cud at the end the skull. Then the individual organs are opened, the heart, lungs, as is necessary in the case of a normal autopsy.
Q. Now, what is the purpose of all this? Why in this particular case did you want an autopsy? You knew the man was dead, didn't you?
A. I didn't want to carry out this autopsy, but Rascher.
Q. I understand; but I'm talking about the man Rascher. Why should there have been an autopsy?
A. Well, I can't tell you that. I think probably in order to find out the cause of death.
Q. I thought you said that it was because of the fact that the man had been subjected to high altitude for so long a period of tine that his heart failed; his heart just stopped. Wasn't that the cause of death?
A. Well, whether the heart stopped because of its work, because of not being able to carry out its work, or whether it was because of a central paralysis starting from the brain, one cannot tell. It is the sane as in the case of anesthesia, in the case of a chloroforms anesthesia. Then the heart can stop because of the effect of the anesthetic, but the heart can also stop whenever the heart is overburdened. It is hard to say in detail what the cause of the death was.
Q. Well, what did Rascher find out was the cause of death in this particular case? He was the one who performed the autopsy, wasn't he, Doctor?
A. As far as I could see he couldn't find the exact cause of the death. At any rate, I couldn't clarify the cause myself.
Q. Did he make any statements in your presence at the time as to what he considered the cause of death?
A. Yes, In the case of this autopsy air bubbles were found; and he thought that these air bubbles would have something to do with it, although I personally am not at all convinced that one can say that with certainty.
Q. Where were the air bubbles found?
A. They were found in the various blood vessels.
Q. All over the body?
A. Yes; at any rate as far as the body was autopsied. Whether air bubbles were existent in the legs I cannot say.
Q. Well, did you agree in your own mind with the cause of death as concluded by Dr. Rascher? Did you think it was caused from air bubbles?
A. I can hardly imagine that the visible ones were the cause because such visible air bubbles often occur as a result of a surgical interference and do not necessarily lead to death. In my opinion it was a sudden central failure caused by perhaps a disturbance of the blood flow. However, I cannot say that exactly.
Q. Do you know of deaths caused by a sudden central failure due to stoppage of the blood flow? Is that a known cause of death in medical circles?
A. I know it now because of the experience of the American air forces when they tried to examine the fitness of their flyers. In 6 cases during a prolonged stay - I think that in twelve kilometer altitude - a sudden death occurred; and since there is no physician prosent during these American tests but only some sergeant or corporal, I only know of this from what they said. But judging from the entire description, they cannot have been any other cases of death, but caused by sudden embolisms.
Q. Did you know that fact at the tine of the death of the Rascher subject? Did you have that medical knowledge?
A. No, I only know that now.
Q. Then how could you disagree with Rascher's diagnosis about the matter if you didn't have that knowledge that you now say you have?
A. At that tine we only knew of the corresponding cases fron the submarine crews who had suffered fron similar symptoms in the case of rescues fron U-boats that had been sunk. In the sane way a number of death cases are known from commercial medicine in the case of caisson workers. People like that, whenever they were found unconscious in the street, were always carrying a certificate describing then as caisson workers who were to be taken to the next hospital as quickly as possible. Thus the principle of this illness is generally known also in commercial medicine.
Q. Well, it is very much the same thing, then, as the card that a diabetic carried, who may have some sort of a stroke as a result of either lack of insulin or insulin shock? Isn't that what you are trying to say, generally speaking?
A. Well, the purely medical progress is different; but diabetics generally carry a certificate with them stating that they are suffering from diabetes and that this and that measure would have to be taken in case of their falling unconscious.
Q. Was a written record of the findings of the autopsy of that furst death made by Rascher?
A. Yes, Rascher noted down all the data on the individual death certificate. He had the intention of evaluating them in some way.
Q. That is true in regard to all three deaths, I suppose, for the second and third deaths? You witnessed the autopsies and very much the same procedure was followed as at the first autopsy?
A. No, I wasn't present during the other autopsies because Rascher didn't ask me to attend. At that time my relationship to Rascher was already strained because of the interruption of the experiments.
Q. Did you see or read or hear the report or written record of the findings on the autopsy that was made by him in the case of the first death.
A. No, I did not see it.
Q. But you saw him making certain notes. Did he discuss with you as one professional man would likely do with another what he thought he was finding, as he made the examination?
A. Yes, he particularly pointed out the air bubbles he had found and expressed that thought when writing down tho findings.
Q. Now, then, sofar as that autopsy was concerned, what possible use could be made of those findings sofar as they would constitute information to medical people who were interested in flying, that is, in aviation medicine, or, to people who were interested in that type of medicine where men are engaged in working under water, or in caissons, under tremendous pressure; what possible use could be made of those findings?
A. Well, I think that one could not use his notes very well because of a singular case of death, since its cause is very hard to determine. One needs large experiences, such as commercial hygienists would have in their corresponding field, and if such a hygienist who was very well acquainted with the subject had been able to look at these findings, I am sure he would be able to draw some conclusions from it.
Q. What conclusions do you think he could have drawn?
A. If he would compare that finding with other findings of caisson death cases, and which are known from that caisson literature, he could have brought tho whole thing on the same denominator. However, in one individual case it is very hard to draw any conclusion.
Q. How many cases would it take Dr. Rascher to really come to any real conclusion about that matter?
A. That is very hard for me to say, because I am no expert in this field. An expert in the caisson field does not only know of the accidents which he himself had witnessed, but he is well acquainted with the literature on the subject, and with findings of other physicians, and from all that he draws his own conclusion.
Q. What about an expert in the high altitude fields. If, for example, you had a record for a case history of fivehundred deaths resulting under the same conditions as that Rascher did, and when you performed your autopsy air bubbles were found throughout the blood vessels. Would you from that be able to gain a certain knowledge that would be valuable in flying?
A. In the entire literature about aviation medicine, I know of no case where air bubbles had been described. That is probably because during an air accident a considerable time passes until an autopsy is made possible. In addition the bodies or corpses in the case of an air accident are usually mutilated, so that aviation medicine has no practical finding. At any rate, I know of none in Germany.
Q. Then the only way you would be able to determine findings would be if there had been or to be a serios of experiments in which you had used experimental subjects, in which the men were subjected to same experiments that Rascher subjected them to, conducted over a great period of time, with a great many men, and, if considerable aid in aviation medicine, wout it not?
A. That is not quite correct. Certainly in order to clarify the findings, one ought to have the possibility to perform autopsies on a number of corpses under suitable conditions.
That question itself, however, bears no interest for aviation medicine. Cases of death had not been observed on hand with air bubbles, and there was no reason to do that. There was no reason to assume that this condition had played any role in cases of death. This was a field which was alien to aviation medicine research. However, alien, this can be seen from the fact that although I saw one such case by accident, I never again dealt with the question. I might, however, for instance, have done the same thing, using animals as experimental subjects, if I had had any practical interest in that field, or had expected any benefit. This is a procedure that does not matter at all. For that reason there was no interest in carrying out a larger number of experiments.
Q. I believe you said in your testimony Friday that you know of at least two or three, of the men connected with the experiments who were recommended for leniency, or commutation for their criminal sentences because of their participation in the experiments. Who were these two or three men?
A. No, I only know what can be seen from the documents here. Sobotta had been pardoned by these people.
Q. In addition to that, the two inmates in tho dissection room had been offered, or recommended for some sort of leniency. Is that what is shown here by the documents; these are the two or three men you referred to?
A. I found that out here on the basis of documents.
Q. But except what you found out on the basis of these documents, would you know that anybody was recommended for leniency?