This entire correspondence referred exclusively to the consignment of mosquitos eggs and this one maleria strain, about which it is said expressly that in April 1942 it was one of these six strains with which Professor Schilling was working. There existed no correspondence at all about Schilling's work. If any such correspondence had existed one would have found it in the same files from which these letters also originate. It is quite clear what is meant by support in this letter. It is the fact that he received 10 anopheles from my laboratory and that in the glands of two of these anopheles, maleria protozoa could be found, which Professor Schilling had been using for some of his experiments. On the basis of this fact, namely that he got two mosquitoes he says that I was giving him support.
Q. I must shortly refer to another document which is Document 1059, which is the letter by Professor Haagen to you dated 29 November 1942. This is what it says on my copy, but I think it must be 1943.
A. In the original it was 1943.
Q. Now, Professor, I want to ask you something about the word "subsequent infection" and Mr. McHaney didn't understand this was to mean active subsequent infections. I really want to put no further questions to you about that matter, because I learned this morning that an affidavit of one of the assistants of Professor Haagen, Fraulein Grodel, has been received hero, from which one can see the correctness of the description as you gave it. This affidavit is going to be submitted to the Tribunal; but I have another question to this document. The Prosecutor asked you about the significance of the words "epidemic strain," -- you find that word in the last paragraph of this letter. Is this a strain with which you can produce epidemics, or what is the situation?
A. I already yesterday answered the Prosecutor's question to the effect that on epidemic strain is a strain of rickettsia protozoa.
The rickettsia protozoa is the cause of lice typhus. The louse typhus in medical literature is usually not designated as a louse typhus, but has the name "epidemic typhus," or "classical typhus." For that reason it is quite customary to speak of epidemic strain whenever speaking of the protozoa strain. On the other hand the murine typhus is also called "Endemic typhus." This is a difference in terminology. The germ of endemic typhus, this murine typhus, is the rickettsia murina or moseri. In that connection you can, of course, speak of Endemic Rickettsia. Epidemics can originate from both of these typhus kinds. This document, however, confirms my statement. During my direct examination I testified that Professor Haagen with his dry vaccines was at first working with a vaccine from murine virus in continuation of the work carried on by Blanc, and that only later ho started to work with the methods which had proven themselves with this murine strain, and began to produce a vaccine from a protozoa strain, and Endemic strain. He had to work on that for a few months in the laboratory, because this strain first of all had to be changed into an avirulent strain with the help of modern virus research. The fact that by applying the methods and alleviation was the result had to be examined in the examination of animals. Haagen in his reports described this procedure in great detail. Only after having gone that far with animal experiments he could go one step further and try to find out how the compatibility of this to dry vaccine applied to human beings.
Q. My last question in connection with Document NO 1186, which the Prosecution introduced a little earlier -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, before propounding your question -The Tribunal will take its recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until 1:30 p.m.)
OFFICE OF US CHIEF OF COUNSEL
EVIDENCE DIVISION LIBRARY BRANCH
THIS ITEM IS DUE ONE WEEK FROM:
IF NEEDED LONGER PLEASE INFORM THE LIBRARY AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 25 April 47.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
May it please your Honor, Defendant Brack having been excused, he is now absent.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note the absence of the Defendant Brack, pursuant to excuse by the Tribunal.
Counsel may proceed.
GERHARD ROSE - Resumed REDIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FRITZ:
Q. Professor, I have one last question regarding the document the prosecution last put in, your letter regarding the experiments with the Copenhagen vaccine. Can you tell me something about that? Tell me about what the results were of testing this vaccine in Buchenwald.
A. The results of this experiment as set down in Ding's diary, namely, the ascertainment that this vaccine which seemed superior to the lung vaccine when used in animal experiments turned out to be useless for use with human beings, that is in the Ding diary. That was the result of the experiment. The practiced consequences of the experiment were that the Ipsen vaccine, the introduction of which I had energetically recommended in September 1943, was not introduced. That was a very important decision for it this vaccine had been introduced, which could be produced two and a half times more copiously than the lung vaccine, then there would have been much greater amounts of vaccine available for people in danger. Today it cannot, of course be said for certain how many human beings would have died as a consequence of using this useless vaccine that I had recommended. But there is no doubt that the number of these deaths would have been materially higher. And from the point of view of my responsibility as a hygienist, -- the responsibility for those who died because a vaccine which I recommended, but which was nevertheless useless, was used, as I say, the responsibility would lie heavier on me.
For one thing, because the number of persons involved would be higher, higher than the responsibility which a court may ascribe to me for having approved this experiment on persons who had been assigned to this experiment by the competent state authority, as can be seen from the documents that the prosecution has put in.
DR. FRITZ: I have no further questions in the redirect examination to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any questions to be propounded to the witness by other defense counsel?
BY DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Karl Brandt):
Q. Witness, under examination by the prosecution you mentioned an experiment that was carried out in a foreign country on persons condemned to death, and you said that carbon tetrachloride was the drug used, is that correct?
A. Yes, that was carbon tetrachloride. That is a medicine which is used frequently in the treatment of hookworm.
Q. Witness, I have one question here. What happens if carbon tetrachloride is heated?
A. You must not heat carbon tetrachloride. Carbon tetrachloride is CCL4 and if you bring that into juxtaposition with oxygen and heat it phosgene gas, which is a poison, is created. The toxicity of carbon tetrachloride in practical use rests on the fact that --
Q. Witness, I am not interested in the details. You do say that phosgene is created?
A. Yes, that is generally known.
DR. SERVATIUS: No further questions.
BY DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for defendant Mrugowsky):
A. Witness, the prosecution at the conclusion of the cross examination showed you Document 1754, which surprised you. Will you please take a look at that document?
A. I don't have the document here.
Q. Will you please take a close look at this document. A large number of Mrugowsky's letters from the Hygiene Institute have been put in evidence. All of these letters had at the letterhead a reference to the letter that was being answered, or they began by saying, in answer to your letter of the such and such. Is there anything of that sort in this letter?
A. No, there is no reference to a previous letter.
Q. When you looked at this letter here you, because it was addressed to you, assumed that a letter from you must have been what this letter refers to. Now if you look at this letter more closely can you tell me whether you remember for certain that you wrote a letter to Mrugowsky or Grawitz or someone else to which this is the answer, or is it possible that, as in other cases, Gildemeister or Conti turned to Grawitz and that Mrugowsky answered the letter on orders from Grawitz?
A. That is, of course, possible. In the cross examination I stated that I did not remember these events, and in particular I staked that I did not remember having given a suggestion that this lung vaccine should be tested. It is, of course, possible that the question of this lung vaccine was negotiated between other offices and that Mrugowsky as a result of these discussions received some such assignment.
Q. Is it not to some extent probable that you were not the person who wrote the letter that preceded this one, because this letter so deviated from the form that is usually prescribed for military letters?
A. Normally, if I should write a letter and receive an answer to it, then the military form proscribes that there should be a reference to what this is an answer to, and then the letter would be answered, so what you say is true.
Q. Also, Document 1186 was put in. That was your letter to Mrugowsky. In this letter --
A. I beg your pardon. I don't have the letter.
Q. I am going to read an excerpt from it. In this letter it states: When the typhus vaccine from mouse livers was being considered it would be desirable to know whether in tho experiments in Buchenwald there were the same protective results as were obtained from vaccines from classical virus. Are you in a position to have such an experimental series carried out? Did you know anything more precisely about the experiments in Buchenwald, in particular Ding's subordination relationships so far as the typhus experiments in Block 46 are concerned?
A. No. Of that I knew nothing. That can also be seen from the letter, because I am addressing an inquiry about matters that I know nothing about. If I had know about them, I should not have had to inquire.
Q. If this letter was put in this morning, do you know whether you received an answer from Mrugowsky or anyone else to this letter and what the contents of the answer were?
A. I can recall no answer and no correspondence in this matter. If there were an answer it probably would have been put in evidence here.
Q. In other words, on the basis of the two documents put in this morning you can say nothing about Ding's position in the typhus experiments or about Mrugowsky's participation in them.
A. There is nothing to be seen about that in these documents, and just what the subordination relations were in the SS, I never knew anything about, so I don't know it today.
DR. FLEMMING: No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions on the part of the defense counsel the Prosecution may cross examine as to matters which have been brought out since the close of the cross examination.
MR. McHANEY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Defendant Rose has no further questions of the witness?
The witness Rose is excused from the witness stand and will take his place.
DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, I have a few documents to put in that I have not yet put in. May I do so now?
I put in as further document from Rose Document Book 2, Document 24, Rose Exhibit 40, Pages 25 and 26 of this Document Book. This is an affidavit by Dr. Friedrich Grunske of February 6, 1947, Since the Prosecution had dropped the charge against Rose so far as it concerns yellow fever, this affidavit has pretty well lost its importance for Rose's case. However, I believe that the affidavit will be of value to the Tribunal in its search for the truth. The Bench will recall that Hr. McHaney and myself had a controversy regarding the interpretation to be put on the German word "Probe", and Mr. McHaney proved with a dictionary that it could mean both "sample" and "experiment". Now I have had another affidavit given to me by the man who made this affidavit, who certainly must have known just what he meant, and he certifies in the last paragraph that when he spoke of "Virus Proben" he was talking of virus samples and not virus experiments.
DR. FRITZ: I now offer another document from Rose Document Nook III - Document 41. This will be Rose Exhibit 41. The document is on page 83. This is an affidavit on the part of Dr. Hildegard Hoering. This is the wife of the Professor Hoering I called as a witness who has already pointed out in his testimony that his wife worked for a certain length of time with Professor Rose in the Robert Koch Institute. I do not wish to read this document. Frau Hoering here explains what Dr. Rose said to her regarding the question of euthanasia.
As the next document I put in the next one in the Document Book -Document 42. This will be Rose Exhibit 42 and is an affidavit by Mr. Schmidt - Juengst of 27 January 1947 on pages 84-5 of the Document Book. This man is a person who has known Dr. Rose since 1922 and makes statements regarding Dr. Rose's character. I shall, however, not read the document.
I now offer the next document, Rose Document 43, Rose Exhibit 43, page 86 of the Document Book. This is an affidavit of the Swiss citizen Dr. Peter Peiser of 12 February 1947 on page 86 - 87 of the Document book. Dr. Peiser also knows the defendant Dr. Rose, having been with him in China. Dr. Peiser is moreover a Jew and gives Dr. Rose a good character reference. I shall dispense with reading the document.
As the next document comes Rose Document 44, the next one in the Document Book. This will be Rose Exhibit 41. This is a letter to myself from Professor Brumpt from the Parisian Institute of Parasitology, 19 November 1946; which concerns the professional qualities of Professor Dr. Rose and this document -
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I don't think that the letter is in the form of an affidavit. I interpose a formal objection. I personally don't mind seeing the document admitted but I raise the objection because I don't want to see any precedent established with regards to letters of this type addressed to Defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution is correct. This is merely an unsworn-to letter.
DR. FRITZ: That is quite true, your Honor. Perhaps the Tribunal would care to look at the original and thus assure itself of the authenticity of this letter.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not the basic reason for the objection. The letter is an ex parte statement written without any responsibility not under oath at all. And, if the Tribunal would admit such letters as this we would very likely be swamped with letters to persons both for the prosecution and for the defense. If counsel for defendant desires to procure a verification or oath to this letter it might now be admitted provisionally subject to later on presenting something in proper form which would make it admissible.
DR. FRITZ: Then I shall follow that procedure, Mr. President. The next Rose Document, Document Rose 45, on page 88 and 90 of the Document Book I shall put in as Rose Exhibit 45. Here the situation is the same as the immediately preceding document, to wit, the document is not sworn to. The difference, however, is that the letter was addressed to the President of War Criminals Court and was made available to me by the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that the letter is directed to the President of War Criminals Court does not change the basic situation. It is still a purely ex parte statement in the letter and not made under oath.
DR. FRITZ: Then I shall put this document in for the present simply for identification and then later produce a sworn certification. Herewith, Mr. President, I have put in evidence all the documents in my Document Book with the exception of Number 48 in the Supplementary Volume. This is the very last document. I don't believe it is necessary for me to put this document in view of the charge that the Prosecution has dropped against the defendant Rose.
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book II, Document No. 27, I have not marked as an exhibit received.
DR. FRITZ: I thank you for bringing this to my attention. This was an oversight on my part. This document I did not put in. However, I should like to do so. That is Rose Document Number 27 and I shall put it in as Rose Exhibit No. 46. This is an affidavit by the University Professor, Dr. Franz Buechner of 3 March 1947, pages 57 to 61 of the Document Book. I shall forego reading the document because it concerns itself largely with the question of hepatitis epidemica since the Prosecution has dropped its charge against Professor Rose. However, on page 60 of the Document Book, at the end of the document it also concerns itself with Professor Rose's personality.
Mr. President, my secretary points out to me that I have failed to put in another document, to wit, Document 40 in Document Book III. This is an affidavit by the physician Dr. Karl Muchlens of 13 February 1947 which I offer as Rose Exhibit 47. It is on pages 78 to 80 of the Document Book. It concerns itself with Professor Rose's criticism. I shall not bother to read this document either. This, I believe, is all the Rose Documents and this concludes my presentation of the Rose case. However, I should like to reserve for myself the right to put in a few documents later. For example, I am expecting some from England.
THE PRESIDENT: As in other cases, the Tribunal will reserve the counsel for the defendant Rose the right to offer the documents he may receive at some later time prior to the time that the evidence is closed.
The defendant Rose having rested his case we will now call the case of the United States versus Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz.
DR. SAUTER (Defense counsel for the defendant Ruff): Mr. President, it is my intention, first of all, to call Dr. Ruff to the stand. Thereupon, I shall have two witnesses to hear if they have arrived here from Berlin by Monday or Tuesday. If the witnesses do not arrive, I have procured affidavits from these witnesses which I shall put in evidence. I have handed in a rough document book which contains documents 1 to 17. Then I have four annexes to this - Annex 1, with documents 18 and 19; Annex 2, with document 20, Annex 3, with document 21; and Annex 4, with two documents, Documents 22 and 23. With the permission of the Tribunal, I should like to call the defendant Dr. Ruff to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness Ruff will take the witness stand.
SIEGFRIED RUFF, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SEBRING:
Please hold up your right hand and be sworn.
I swear by God, the almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
You may sit down.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, before Dr. Sauter begins, the prosecution has not yet received Supplements 3 and 4 and, in addition thereto. I am not aware of the fact that we have received the notice of the two witnesses to be called by Dr. Sauter for the defendant Ruff. It may well be that we have and I have not received them yet, and I would merely like to know the names of the two witnesses he intends to call if they arrive from Berlin.
DR. SAUTER: I believe the Tribunal has the supplementary volumes 1 and 2 since long. The volumes 3 and 4 will probably be given to the prosecution and the Court on Monday.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no supplementary document book.
DR. SAUTER: Here they come.
(Document books were presented to the Tribunal by the Secretary General).
And the two witnesses whom I intend to call, assuming that they get here from Berlin, are Dr. Freitag and Fohmeister, but I much doubt whether they will get here from Berlin.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Dr. Ruff, you are forty years old?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes.
Q. Have two children, ages 4 and 8?
A. Yes.
Q. You studied medicine, took your degree, and were then assistant at a University clinic but, however, did not set up your own practice?
A. That is true. Never.
Q. You entered the service of the Luftwaffe and served not in the Luftwaffe but in the Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt. Perhaps you can explain how that came about. When did you enter that institute?
A. During my study as a doctor I spent my spare time studying aviation. That is to say, I flew as a sport -- at first, gliding, and then motorized flight. Of course, as a student of medicine who concerned himself with sport aviation I, of course, was interested in the medical questions that concern aviation. When, after my studies were concluded and I had taken my doctor's examination, I was an assistant at the University clinic at Bonn. I began to concern myself with the medical questions of aviation and to experiment in this field. The work I did at that time was mainly concerned in ascertaining whether the climatic conditions that one meets when one climbs to a high altitude could be used, in any way, for the therapeutic purposes. At the end of the year 1933, one of my teachers, the physicist ordinarius at the University of Bonn, recommended me to the Experimental Station for Aviation as a medical consultant.
I accepted this position in 1934. In other words, since 1934 and until the collapse I was a physician in the Experimental Station for Aviation.
Q. You were the director of this institute?
A. First when I came to the institute in 1934 I was scientific collaborator in the institute. I was the first and only medical collaborator in this research institute, and was first assigned to the Department for the Investigation of Technical Accidents. Thus, in the first years of my activities there, I concerned myself with questions of accidents, worked on the medical questions involved, and since this field became larger and larger, I finally received a department and finally I built a medical institute with several scientific collaborators.
Q. Was this aviation medicine institute that you were in charge of -- was this a part of the Luftwaffe?
A. This DVL did not have any legal status of its own. It was one of many institutes that were included under the term "DVL", namely, Deutsche Versuchsanstalt fuer Luftfahrt. At the end of the war there were about twelve or fourteen such institutes within the framework of the DVL.
Q. What was the managing board of the DVL?
A. The DVL was a registered association, founded by private and governmental sources, in order to conduct research into the scientific basis for aviation. The association consisted of individuad industrial firms and state offices and officials. The board of managers was elected from this group of people. I consisted again of private individuals, of representatives of individual industrial firms who were members of the association, and of representatives of other governmental institutes. The board of managers of the DVL determined how the organization was to be managed, and it appointed the institute and departmental chiefs. The management, at that time, consisted of one scientist.
To him were subordinated four directors. Three of these directors each had a group of scientific institutes under him, and the fourth director was in charge of administration, construction, etc. In this group of institutes they were subordinate to the individual directors. My institute was the one entitled "Equipment".
Q. You were the leader of this institute until Spring of 1945. Were you then professional active thereafter, and if so, when and where?
A. From the Spring of 1945 until the Autumn of 1945 I was unemployed. From October, 1945, to September 1946, I was scientific collaborator of the Aero-Medical Center of the United States Air Forces.
Q. What was your position there, just in general?
A. My activities were similar to those that I had under the DVL.
Q. Were high altitude experiments carried on in this Aero Medical Center such as you are accused of in this trial?
A. I experimented in the field of high altitude research and also carried out high altitude experiments in the low pressure chamber as I had done in my institute and of which I am here accused.
Q. Did you use a low pressure chamber such as was used in Dachau?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, what specific tasks did your institute have? Namely, the institute of which you said previously that it had the title "Air Medicine Institute"?
A. In general, this institute had the job of finding the medical and scientific bases of aviation and investigating the general practical questions that confront aviation.
Q In what way was this institute or the D.V.L. subordinate to the Air Ministry?
A The D.V.L. received its instructions from the Air Ministry until the end of 1941 from the so-called research department of the Air Ministry and then from the research director of the Ministry. My institute, the Institute for Aviation Medicine, had a particular position with the D.V.L. to the extent that we were subordinate to the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and had to report to it and receive orders from it. However, the orders which we did receive from the Medical Inspector to concerned only technical matters. In other words, it was not a military subordination or command.
Q Who was chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe at that time?
AAt that time, Hippke.
Q The same Hippke, who has often here been mentioned?
A Yes.
Q What were the relations between your institute and the party; the SS and the SA and what were your relations to the N.S. Doctors Union?
A The German Experimental Institute for Aviation, as well as my own Institute, had no relations at all to the party, to the SS or to any other party agency. The Institute, as I have already said here, had been founded in the year 1911, it was a registered association and had no affiliations to any party agencies.
I, myself, at the end of 1937, entered the party as a party candidate and was finally accepted in the year 1938. I did not belong to the SS, the SA or to the National Socialist League of Physicians.
Q You were saying that you were accepted into the party in the year of 1938; did you then become a proper party member; did you receive the party membership book; did you receive the usual obligations; were you placed under oath, etc.
?
A I said that in the second half of 1937 I signed my application for party membership and that in the year of 1938 I was actually accepted. I never received a so-called party book, nor did I get any obligation.
Q During the subsequent period, did you hold any office in the party?
A No, I never exorcised any office with the party.
Q Mr. President, in that connection I should like to offer an affidavit as Document No. 2 in Document Book Dr. Ruff and I shall give it Exhibit No. 1, Ruff Exhibit No. 1. This is an affidavit by Engineer Otto Fuchs, given on 23 December 1946 and certified and signed on the very same day before the competent Burgermeister. After the customary introduction, the witness Otto Fuchs says, but at first states that he was a deputy member of the Board of Directors in the German Experimental Institute for Aviation and then he speaks about Dr. Ruff:
"Dr. Siegfried Ruff, as chief of the 'Institute for Aviation Medicine' was also employed with the D.V.L. As far as I remember he was appointed to this position by recommendation of Professor Dohnen, amongst others, who was at that time Chancellor of Bonn University. This alone shows that party political consideration did not lead to Dr. Ruff's appointment, but exclusively scientific considerations, and especially the fact that he, as an enthusiastic and extremely gifted pilot, seemed to be particularly suited to understand the problems, which arose during actual flights, and to submit these to scientific examination. I saw and talked to Dr. Ruff almost daily, unless either he or I were travelling.
His political opinion is known to me well enough to be able to testify about it.
2. I would like to emphasize the following about Dr. Ruff's character and his general human qualities as far as I was able to observe them:
a) His readiness to listen to all human troubles and his ever present willingness to help with advice and action. He always put in a good word for the accused in any kind of disciplinary action, especially in connection with the often incomprehensible severe sentences for violations of flying discipline and order, but also in matters pertaining to offenses against civil laws. He tried to awaken human understanding by explaining the psychological backgrounds and by citing his own experiences. His attitude impressed me favorably and as a result we frequently discussed the idea of attaching a section for aviation psychology to his institute. His kindly, frank manner seems, by the way, not to be an individual characteristic but a quality possessed by his entire family.
Dr. Ruff had a very high conception of his medical calling. He demanded from himself and his staff the highest personal effort. I know, for instance, that he and his colleagues carried out the most dangerous aviation experiments, such as those on acceleration-endurance, sitting personally at the controls. Dr. Wieshoefer who participated with him in these investigations, met with accidental death during one of them. In the same way he repeatedly performed experiments on himself in the centrifuge and in the highaltitude chamber. During those experiments he often reached the limit of endurance and consciously accepted pain and physical disorders. This spirit, by the way, did not reign exclusively amongst the doctors of the D.V.L. I know for instance, that Dr. Benzinger of the Airforce Research Institute Rechlin also conducted highly dangerous experiments on himself as an experimental subject.
I never noticed that Dr. Ruff was possessed of an unusual or even a pathological ambition, which might have resulted in his acting against his better conscience for reasons of decoration or career. His simple, modest, quiet demeanour, his integrity, and his dislike of meeting his superiors more often than official necessity demanded, resulted in many personal setbacks, for instance, his promotion to a professorship; but nevertheless this caused no injury to his selfconfidence which might have resulted in a desire to alter his way of life or to push himself into the limelight.
For these mentioned reasons I consider it absolutely impossible for Dr. Ruff to have committed a crime against the law and against humanity.
b) Dr. Ruff seemed to me at no time so enamoured of national socialistic ideology that he accepted all decrees, speeches and actions of the government without criticism. Neither did he agree with the brutal treatment of the Jews, nor with inhuman warfare, as far as we know about it. I remember the horror with which he discussed the destruction of the Warsaw Ghetto when rumors about this occurrence reached him. The order to kill parachutists who bailed out and especially Dr. Goebbels' malicious statement that enemy air-crews who bailed out, could no longer be protected from the fury of the population, which was practically an incitement to murder, he regarded as infamy quite incompatible with the honor of a soldier, and he expressed himself openly to that effect. He also sharply criticized the surprise daylight attack of German fighterplanes on London - I forget the date - when crowds and buses were fired on.