In the list of the 97 research assignments, Document No934, Exhibit 458 of 97 research assignments 8 are not of an aviation medical character. For this reason also, namely, for these purely administrative matters of seeing that these directives are being obeyed-for this reason also all of these file numbers 33 matters went to the Referat for Aviation Medicine. There was a third reason, namely, the following: all of these who received research assignments were, as I said before, Professors or Scientists of long standing. The Referat Aviation Medicine was from 1939 to 1944 always administered by active professors and there is a different point of view of administrative and organizational correspondence and if efforts were to be made to preserve the style of academic circles and so it was that the Referent in this department was concerned with these research assignments and this continued event after 1944 when I became the Referent even though I was not at that time a professor.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, in this connection I had intended to put on a number of documents -- documents regarding the entire research problem. That is to say, the assignment of this research; the form, contents, the supervision, etc. Unfortunately I received these documents so late that they are in Becker-Freysing Document Book 5 and one if then is in Book 4 and so far as I am informed the Tribunal has not yet received these volumes. However, the Defense Information Center has told me that I may have one translation of one of these affidavits and may receive it during recess. If that is the case I should like to put it in then. It is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Schaefer. Otherwise I ask permission to put in the documents later as soon as they have been translated.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents may be offered when they are available to counsel. I suggest that this examination be somewhat expedited I think we have had very long explanation but doubtless have their importance to the defense counsel but I think that this examination could be expedited somewhat to advantage.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I have just concluded the treatment of this theme and I come now to the discussion of the individual counts in the indictment and I should like to ask that perhaps the noon recess be taken now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330 o'clock)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 20 May 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK (Counsel for the Defendant Hoven): Mr. President, I ask you to excuse the Defendant Hoven from tomorrow morning's and tomorrow afternoon's session in order to prepare his defense.
MR. HARDY: I have no comment in this regard, your Honor, but while the defense counsel for Hoven is here I have a question to put to him regarding the case of the Defendant Hoven. To date we have had two witnesses appear on behalf of Hoven. The prosecution is interested in whetheror not the defense counsel intends to call other witnesses on behalf of the Defendant Hoven.
DR. GAWLIK: Three other witnesses have been approved, the witnesses Richard, Dorn, and Scheuble. I have received an affidavit from the witness Rickard which I am going to submit. Whether I shall call the witnesses Dorn and Scheuble to the witness stand, or whether I would prefer to get affidavits from them, I cannot say today, since I have to discuss that question with the witnesses as soon as they arrive in Nuremberg.
TIE PRESIDENT: Counsel, as soon as you have discussed this matter with the witnesses, will you advise counsel for the prosecution as to whether they will be put on the stand or you will use an affidavit?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Defendant Hoven having requested that Defendant Hoven be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow in order that his counsel may consult with him concerning his defense, the request is granted. The Defendant Hoven will be excused from attendance before the Tribunal tomorrow.
Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness.
HERMANN BECKER-FREYSENG - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. TIPP (Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, with reference to the complex which I completed this morning concerning the research assignments and their treatment I said that I was going to submit a document from which I was going to quote, I already said, it is contained in Document Book No. which is not yet available to the Tribunal; however, I have just received the yet available to the Tribunal; however, I have just received the translation of that document from the Language Division, and the necessary amount of copies have been handed to the Secretary-General, with the request to hand them to the Tribunal.
The interpreters as well as Mr. Hardy have also received copies. If it please the Tribunal, I should like to quote a few passages from this document.
(Document handed to the Tribunal.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not yet received the copies of this document in the German language, but I assume they will be provided later.
Counsel may proceed.
DR. TIPP: This is Becker-Freyseng Document NO 64, contained in Document Book 4 on page 340. I offer it as Becker-Freyseng Exhibit No. 7. It is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Hans Schaefer, of Kerckhoff Institute, Bad Nauheim, dated 24 April 1947. After the customary introduction he says, under figure 1.
1) "I, Prof. Dr. Dchacfcr, physiologist, department director of the William G. Kerckhoff Institute at Bad Nauheim since 1 January 1940, received in 1940 or 1941 from the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe a research assignment on the subject of "research on the electrical by-effects of anoxemia and hyper-aeration". With reference to this assignment, two intermediate reports as well as 3 publications were issued. It wasnot yet completed by the end of the war.
"2) The subject was selected and proposed by me. I had previously worked on similar subjects, although not on the effects of anoxia. The subject represents part of my special field i.c. the combination of electro-physiology and circulatory research, on which field I am still working today."
Under figure 3 the witness describes why he asked for this assignment --- in order to obtain priorities and deferments and thus to be able to carry on his scientific activities.
DR. TIPP (Continuing): I quote from figure 4 on the 2nd page:
"I did not subject myself to any supervision by the Medical Inspectorate by the assignment of tho research commission and its acceptance. The research assignment gave me absolute latitude regard the method of execution and the choice of the meansof research. I was only obliged to give reports on schedule and to account for the money spent.
"5) There never was a check-up by the Medical Inspectorate, nor were there any requests. At one occasion, however, Prof. Anthony, the official in charge, paid me a private visit and was shown through the institute by me."
I shall skip figures 6 and 7; I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of them.
I quote again from paragraph 8:
"No instructions regarding the execution of the commission were issued, and had they been, I should in any case have rejected them."
The rest of this paragraph isnot relevant.
In figure 9 he says, and I quote:
"I should not on principle have permitted any kind of control of our scientific results, even by experts. If controls are desired they are only possible in the form of new experiments by a second scientist."
I shall dispense with reading the rest of the document. There follows the signature and the customary certification by a notary.
This concludes the question of research assignments for the time being, and I now turn to the individual counts of the indictment.
Q Witness, you have heard the desire of the Tribunal that the proceedings be shortened; for my part I shall strike out part of the questions which I intended to put to you, and I should like to ask you to limit your replies to what is absolutely necessary.
Witness, the Prosecution charges you with special responsibility for and participation in high-altitude and cold experiments. We know on the basis of numerous documents and the testimony of witnesses that in these groups of experiments Dr. Rascher played a very special role; for that reason I should like to ask you first about your relationship to Dr. Rascher. Tell me, when did you, for the first time, learn of a Dr. Rascher who was a Captain in the Medical Corps (Stabsarzt) of the Luftwaffe?
A. I heard about Dr. Rascher for the first time at about the beginning of June 1942.
Q And on what occasion was that?
AAt the beginning of June, Professor Anthony was on leave and as far as I remember he had to go on his vacation very quickly because the Chief Physician of his clinic had suddenly fallen ill. A few days later the department chief, Generalarzt (Martius?) sent some files back to me which Professor Anthony had given to him before his departure. Among those files there were the first proposals for the cold meeting which was planned for the fall of 1942, including the first proposals about the participants and the intended lectures. There were a number of changes made by the department chief on this list, and among them was an added sentence saying that a Dr. Rascher was to receive an invitation. This name, at that time, meant nothing to me, because I was neither working in the sphere of cold questions, nor did I have anything to do with the plans for the meeting. For that reason, I did not attach any particular importance to what the department chief said.
About one or two weeks later, at any rate while Professor Anthony was still on vacation, my department chief ordered me to go to the Medical Inspector, Professor Hippke, with part of these files, the papers pertaining to the proposed meeting. At Professor Hippke's office there was a Captain of the Medical Corps (Stabsarzt) of the Luftwaffe; I found out from his conversation with Hippke that he was Rascher. Professor Hippke wanted to speak to Anthony and asked me for the files and what information I could give him. This is the same conference of which Professor Hippke spoke when he was examined in the trial of Field Marshal Milch.
Q Since this conference was mainly,concerned with cold questions as you say, we shall come back to it when we are discussing that problem. I do want to ask you now: What impression did Dr. Rascher make on you when you saw him for the first time?
A On the whole, Rascher made quite a good impression on me at that time. I must add that I saw Rascher speaking to my higher superior who had received him without a department chief; Rascher spoke like an educated man; he was courteous, and seemed to be well versed in the fields which he discussed with Hippke.
Q Would you please shortly tell us in a few words, witness, what this conversation was about?
A When I entered the conversation Rascher was just informing Hippke that the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler had ordered him to carry out cold experiments, and he asked for the support of a sea emergency expert from the Luftwaffe for that purpose.
Q Of course, it became evident from the conversation that they were to be experiments on human beings?
A Yes, that became evident.
Q But, did Rascher say that he was going to use concentration camp inmates as experimental subjects, or how did he characterize the experimental subjects?
A Rascher very clearly spoke about prisoners or convicted criminals who were at our disposal, on the basis of special permission given by Hitler and Himmler, if I remember correctly, and who had to volunteer. It was my impression at that time that we were only concerned with a very limited number of people and certain vary specific cases.
Q Then Rascher spoke of criminals who were to become experimental subjects?
A Yes.
Q Did he say anything about the type of criminals?
A No, not in detail. It was very clear, however, that they were criminals. I remember that he mentioned that these people were to have the opportunity of rehabilitating themselves in some way by virtue of their participation in these experiments. He furthermore said that for that reason not every criminal who volunteered would be permitted to participate. I remember very clearly an example where a sexual criminal who had been convicted of a number of offenses against your children, had volunteered but was not permitted to participate in those experiments, where he would have had an opportunity to rehabilitate himself.
Q How did this conversation end, witness?
A I can say nothing about that. I was only called to attend the conference after it has begun, and I had to leave the conference before it was finished.
Q In that case, you do not know what actually was agreed upon, do you?
A What Rascher and Hippke discussed finally, I do not know.
Q Now, witness, on this occasion you saw Dr. Rascher for the first time, and you heard for the first time that experiments were to be performed or could be performed on criminals in Germany; is that right?
A Yes.
Q. As you told us yesterday, you had informed yourself to a great extent about the experiments on human beings from the theoretical point of view and you had performed experiments on yourself; now tell us, what impression did you have when you heard that outsiders, criminals, were to be used for these experiments?
A This announcement made a big impression on me. I had had sufficient experience with experiments on human beings in general and self-experiments in particular. Up to that point I had known about experiments on prisoners only from literature. I knew about them only as a result of my prepatory work for the State examination, when a few famous cases had to be known for bacteriology or surgery. These were Strang's famous plague experiments in Manilla, warning's leprosy experiment; and I knew of other examples from "Microbe Hunters" by Paul de Kruif, which I had read like every other German medical student.
Q After having already concerned yourself with that proble in theory, beforehand, may I now ask you, witness, whether you considered these experiments which were being planned legal experiments?
A Yes, I considered them to be just as legal as all the others of which I already knew at that time. I know that no objection had been raised to their legality or admissibility. In addition I was told that the criminals were to volunteer. I know that a special examination was necessary, and that special permission would be given. Furthermore, I did not hear about this matter in some dark corner whore a conspiracy was going on, but I heard about it in the office of my supreme superior, about whom I had to assume that he had known Rascher from before, end that he had already dealt with that question for some time.
Q Well, witness, that was your attitude about this plan at that time, just as you have outlined it to us now. Witness, how do you judge the question of legality today?
A In principle, just as then: today I have much more proof and many more examples for experiments on criminals, which were carried out in an absolutely legal and admissible way. I can not imagine that the criminals of other countries would be idealists and would out of pure idealism volunteer for those experiments in large numbers, while German criminals would not volunteer for such purposes. I don't actually believe that German criminals are prompted by idealism but because they expect certain improvements in their condition therefrom, and I think the same holds true in other countries. In order to prove that, I may quote a passage from the book "An American doctor's Odyssey" by Victor Heiser, from page 149 of the German authorized translation of the year 1946. It says there, and I quote: "As soon as a remedy for some disease had been suggested, the Institute established whether it was effective. The experiments were carried out on inmates of Bilibid, who earned a little money and, if the experiments were dangerous, could achieve a mitigation of their sentence." The institute is the Worcester Institute in Manilla.
Similar proof from modern times can be found, for example, in the Journal of the American Medical association, 27 April 1946, volume 130, panic 1256. I quote: Under the heading, "Prisoners Used as Guinea Pigs for Medical Experiments," there follows the report.
Similar thereto is a report that experiments were carried out on some 77 inmates in a prison with hashish or marihuana. Mention has already been made here of a number of experiments on conscientious objectors, so I do not gave to go into all that.
All those examples, which do not originate from antiquity but from the last few years, seem to show very clearly that there is a possibility of finding enough volunteers among penitentiary inmates for such experiments, that there are always enough physicians who are ready to perform such experiments, and that apparently no one in the world raises any objections to such experiments.
Q Let us now go back, witness, to Dr. Rascher; when did you see Dr. Rascher for the second time?
A I saw Rascher for the second time on the occasion of the Nurnberg cold meeting in October 1942.
Q On what occasion?
A On the occasion of tho famous cold meeting here in Nurnberg.
Q Rascher, as can be seen from the documents, made some discussion remarks on the lecture of Professor Holzlochner. Without going into detail, I want to ask you whether you gained the impression from Rascher's remarks that what Rascher had been doing in Dachau was in any way criminal?
AAt that time it did not become evident to me from what Rascher said that what he had been doing in collaboration with Holzlochner was outside the law or outside the sphere of admissibility.
Q But we do know, witness, that these discussion remarks made by Rascher during the Nurnberg cold meeting raised an occasion for some discussion among the participants in that meeting. How do you explain these discussions, part of which wore rejecting Rascher's procedure?
A One really can not speak of any discussion in the true sense of the word - a discussion at the meeting. I think there was only a purely private discussion after the lecture.
Q That's what I mean.
A If I can judge from my own case, the discussions did not refer to what Rascher said, but to the manner in which he said it. The manner in which ho spoke about his experiments was somewhat sloppy, and not quite suited the serious nature of the lecture.
Q You said, witness, that you met Rascher in June in Berlin in Professor -Hippke's office and that you saw him again during the Nurnberg cold meeting?
A Yes.
Q Before this Nurnberg meeting, did any one warn you against Dr. Rascher?
A No.
Q Now let us turn to another problem, witness, in connection with Dr. Rascher. We knew from what Professor Weltz testified here and also from a number of documents, which were submitted b y the Prosecution, that Dr. Rascher wanted to qualify as a lecturer by submitting a thesis in the field of aviation medicine. Rascher was in addition a medical officer of the Luftwaffe and it could be assumed that you, or the Medical Inspectorate, would have learned something about these plans of Rascher and as a result would also have found out what Rascher actually did in order to execute those plans. Witness, may I ask you whether you knew anything about Rascher's intention to qualify as a lecturer?
A No, I knew nothing about that.
Q I do not want to discuss all those documents with you, witness, which were submitted by the Prosecution in that connection; they show no connection with the Luftwaffe, apart from two exceptions. These two exceptions which I just mentioned arc in connection with aviation medical research, and for that reason I must ask you about them.
The first document I should like you to look at can be found in Document Book 2. This is document NO-290, Exhibit 121, which can be found on page 166 in the German book and 156 in the English Document Book. I beg your pardon, this is in Document Book 3. It is a letter signed by Mr. Sievers, bearing the letterhead of the "Ahnenerbe" Society, with the date 21 March 1944. It is addressed to Doctor Rudolf Brandt, on the personal staff of the Reichsfuchrer SS. I should like to discuss only one sentence in this document with you; it is the last sentence on the first page, and I quote:
"The director of the Institute for Aviation Medicine in Frankfurt, Oberstarzt Professor Dr. von Diringshofen, who had already concented to take part in the presentation of the thesis in Marburg, would most certainly have been induced to favor admission to the faculty in Frankfurt."
Oberstarzt Professor von Diringshofen was a medical officer of the Luftwaffe, and in addition an Institute for Aviation Medicine is mentioned here. May I ask you, witness, do you know von Diringshofen, and do you know this Institute for Aviation Medicine of which Mr. Sievers is speaking here?
A I know Professor von Diringshofen, but there was never an Institute for Aviation Medicine in Frankfurt. Professor von Diringshofen was the head of on institute for mechanical influences on the surroundings. This institute was founded by the city of Frankfurt on the Main and had nothing whatever to do with the Luftwaffe.
Q. In the same connection, witness, would you please look at another document in the same document book: this is Document NO-230, Exhibit 115, on page 153 of the German and 142 of the English document book. This is the course of Rascher's medical training, which he himself has written under the date of 17 May 1943; on the last page of this document, page 4, you will find the following passage, and I quote:
"After the conclusion of this research work", of which he has previously been speaking, "I intend , as agreed upon, to return to the University Institute for Aviation Medicine and Hygiene (Professor Dr. Pfannenstiel, Marburg) for my further scientific training."
Since aviation medicine matters were under the Medical Inspectorate, witness, I may ask you whether you knew of this institute, and whether through this institute you knew about Rascher's plans?
A I can say that there was never an institute for aviation medicine at Marburg and that I knew nothing of Rascher's plans in this connection.
Q Mr. President, in that connection I offer as an exhibit Becker-Freyseng document No. 21 on page 89 of document Book 1. This will become Exhibit No. 8. This is the affidavit....
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you don't mean Document Book No. 1, do you?
DR. TIPP: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, Document Book No. 2.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you assign to that?
DR. TIPP: Exhibit No. 8. I may quote briefly; it is on page 89. It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. med. Heinz von Diringshofen, Frankfurt on the Main, 7 February 1947. After the customary introduction I quote Figure I.
"The Institute established by me with the assistance of the city of Frankfurt/Main in 1942, and which I directed, was called:
Medical Research Institute for Mechanical Influences. This Institute was neither attached to the Inspectorate for Medical Affairs of the Luftwaffe, not did it work under its orders."
Under paragraph 2 the witness describes how this quotation which I have just put to the witness originated, namely that Professor Dr. Bach asked the witness von Diringshofen whether he would be prepared to give a scientific opinion on a thesis by the Luftwaffe Stabsarzt Dr. Rascher, written for the purpose of qualifying as a lecturer. Professor von Diringshofen further states that he declared himself ready to do so but that he heard nothing further about that plan.
I quote again from page 2 of the document, the last paragraph:
"I was never requested by the Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe Medical Service to cooperate with Dr. Siegmund Rascher on his habilitation paper, nor did I inform the Inspectorate as to the abovementioned discussion with Professor Bach."
There follows the signature and the customary certification.
As the next document in that connection I should like to offer Becker-Freyseng Document No. 22, which can be found on page 91 of the same document book. This will become Exhibit No. 9. It is an official certificate of the administrative director of Phillips University of Marburg, dated 10 January 1947; I should like to quote the first paragraph:
"An Institute for Aviation Medicine and Hygiene never existed at Phillips University in Marburg not even during the years 1941 to 1943."
I shall now quote the last paragraph:
"The above facts are taken from the files of the council (Kuratorium) of Phillips University.
Then follows the signature, the stamp and certification.
Witness, when you saw Rascher in Hippke's office and at the Nuremberg cold meeting, he was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know anything about his membership in the SS, about which much mention has been made here?
A. No, I knew nothing in particular about that. I only knew, and I heard it during Hippke's conversation with Rascher, that Rascher was speaking about his good relations with Heinrich Himmler.
Q. How was it, witness, that a man who obviously had close connections with the Reichsfuehrer SS could have been a physician in the Luftwaffe and was not in the Waffen SS?
A. I don't know about Rascher's special case, but there were a number of similar cases. Before the war the Waffen SS had not yet existed as an independent Wehrmacht branch, so that a number of reserve officers who belonged to the General SS had performed their reserve service in ether branches, with the Army, Navy, or Luftwaffe. Then the war started these people were drafted into their respective Wehrmacht branches without their civilian membership in any Part formation being taken into consideration.
Q. As we know, Dr. Rascher concerned himself with two subjects, the subject of altitude and the subject of cold. Both of those subjects were problems of aviation medicine?
A. Yes.
Q. That it can be assumed, and the Prosecution obviously does assume, that negotiations and correspondence carried on with the Luftwaffe -- in particular the Medical Inspectorate -- about these subjects must have gone via the Referat for Aviation Medicine?
A. That could be assumed, yes, but from all of the documents of the Rasher complex I have found only two documents which even hint at any participation of the Referat, whereas all other documents show clearly that the Referat had nothing at all to do with it.
Q. And how do you explain that, witness? What I mean is, how do you explain that the majority of the correspondence with the Medical Inspectorate did not go over the Referat?
A. Well, this can no doubt partly be explained by the fact that the Medical Inspector, Prof. Hippke, very frequently dealt with such matters without the aid of his Referents. In addition, I think that this was probably because Rascher only dealt with the highest authorities personally.
A. Now, witness, in this connection I have to discuss several documents with you from which the Prosecution will probably infer a connection between Rascher and you. The first document in that connection can be found in Document Book No. 2, page 137 of the German and 113 in the English document book; it is Document NO-226, Prosecution Exhibit No. 55. It is a letter from the Ahnenerbe, again signed by Mr. Sievers, and it is dated 21 October 1942, addressed to SS-Obersturmfuehrer Dr. Brandt, on the personal staff of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Under the same document number there is attached the draft of a letter to Field Marshal Milch, and this supplement prompts me to discuss this document with you. In the original, it is said, that the high-altitude experiments are to be continued and Sievers writes that the low-pressure chamber will be required, and in the attached supplement to Field Marshal Milch, there is the following:
"In addition to the report which I had submitted to me here by Stabsartz Dr. Rascher and Dr. Romberg concerning the carrying out of high-altitude experiments, I had desired that a similar report be submitted to you, too. Although it was not possible for you to participate in the conference of 11 September 1942 and to convince yourself of the results, up to now, of those experiments, I beg you once more today to put at our disposal the low-pressure chamber, through the Aviation Experimental Institute. As the experiments are to be extended to greater altitudes, this time differential pumps would also have to be supplied."
Witness, we are here concerned with the low-pressure chamber, and you said that you had something to do with the administration of the low-pressure chambers in the Medical Inspectorate. Can you tell me whether you received knowledge of this letter and whether the Referat for Aviation Medicine had anything to do with this matter?
A I had neither seen that letter before nor was the Referat for Aviation Medicine ever concerned with that matter. That can clearly be seen from two things in this letter. The assumption that the German Research Institute for Aviation Medicine should on its own initiative place a low-pressure chamber at their disposal is absolutely erroneous. If this letter had been previously discussed with the Referat for Aviation Medicine; the writer would have known that only the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe would have furnished any such chamber. In addition, if I had been asked about this point I would have told the person concerned that I know nothing of the so-called differential pumps and that none of the low-pressure chambers in the entire Luftwaffe were equipped with them.
Q Now, witness, we come to another document in this connection. And this is again a matter of aviation medicine problems which were dealt with by Dr. Rascher - aviation medicine research. In that connection I should like to discuss with you the Prosecution Document 1612 PS, Exhibit 79. This can be found in Document Book II on page 136 of the German, and page 122 of the English Document Book. It is a letter, "the Reichsfuehrer-SS", and signed "by order, Brandt, SS Obersturmbannfuehrer." It is addressed to a number of persons whom we shall discuss later.
This is a letter of the Reichsfuehrer Heinrich Himmler, apparently, dated 13 December 1942, in which Rascher, who at that time was a Stabsarzt in the Luftwaffe, is entrusted with the execution of realistic low-pressure chamber experiments. Furthermore, he is entrusted with experiments for re-warming after freezing. The other points are not important in this connection.
Since we are clearly hero concerned, with aviation medical research questions, witness, the conclusion is likely that the Referat for Aviation Medicine or the Medical Inspectorate had gained knowledge of this assignment which was given to Rascher or in which Rascher was included. In that connection may I ask you whether you learned anything about this assignment given to Mr. Rascher?
A No, I found out nothing about that assignment.
Q As you say, no copy of this letter was acknowledged by the Referat of Aviation Medicine.
A No, that can clearly be seen from the distribution list and I think it is a matter of argument to point to various other matters which clearly show a personal nature between Heinrich Himmler and Rascher.
Q Now, witness, you are saying that the Referat For Aviation Medicine had nothing to do with this part of Rascher's work and the Medical Inspectorate was not concerned with these matters. In that connection I must put to you a document which does not seem to tally with what you are saying and which most probably was submitted by the Prosecution in order to prove your connection with Rascher's experiments.