With regard to the central nervous system, circulation and exanthema, decidedly grave symptoms of the disease were observed during the course of this epidemic. Accordingly there was also a lethal exitus in over fifty percent of the cases.
"Thanks to strictly observed quarantine, the day of infection could be ascertained in a series of cases of the disease. This is particularly important for the determination of the time of incubation as we stressed elsewhere and the start of a specific treatment. In these cases it was possible to administer the drugs at a very early stage, a fact which permitted a more complete judgment."
Of course, Ding is saying here that they were able to experiment on thirty-nine persons who had, so far as appears from this paper, naturally contracted typhus. Note the date, April to May, 1943, because it will be important in a few moments. He says that they were able to determine the date of infection and consequently they could make a good experiment on these people.
The report continues: "At the time in question, 1943, the therapy of our patients covered hydro-therapeutic measures, heart circulation support, as well as soothing of grave deliria. Pyramidon and Methylene Blue didn't prove particularly effective to us.
"In the meantime we developed a heart circulation therapy for our patients which we used with good success although lethal cases occurred also occasionally in spite of all medicamental and nursing measures."
Then follows some material about the clinical observations what they did, which I shall omit reading and continue on the middle of Page 24 of the English Document Book.
"It is quite clear to us that elsewhere and sometimes other experiences which differ strongly from ours can be made with this therapy. The symptoms of spotted fever are so manifold and dependent upon so many facts that it is unnecessary to add anything to the critical remarks of Mrugowsky, Wohlrab, and Aschenbrenner.
"According to the instructions of the firm Bayer at Hoecst, Rutenol was administered in the form of a granulate, of which a heaped teaspoonful roughly corresponds to a single dose of four grams. The treatment included a normal series of six to ten single doses at intervals of six hours. In the case of Nitro Acridin, sugar coated, it was one to two tablets three times a day, possibly from the start of the disease. Patients whose infection could be regarded as rather certain were given Rutenol, respectively Acridin already during the incubation time. If the patient could take it even only to some degree, we continued the treatment beyond ten doses.
"Modalities and results of the therapy can be seen from the following charts."
Now, there is a certificate of translation at the bottom of that page which does not belong there. That is not the end of the document. The same certificate appears later on at the end of the document. I will ask the Tribunal just to disregard this. The chart on Page 25 gives a chart where they administered the drug Rutenol by the mouth and gives this table showing the age of the experimental subject, the incubation period, the fever days, the course of the disease, the result of it--that is to say, whether he recovered or whether he dies--the complications, time of treatment, the daily quantity of medicaments in grams, and the tolerableness of the subject to the drug--that is to say, whether he vomited or otherwise suffered ill effects from the drug.
The next page, 26, gives a chart summary of the results of treating the typhus patients by Rutenol. You will note that they treated fifteen of the thirty-nine with Rutenol through the mouth; and the reports says "complications were bronchial pneumonia, nephritis, intestinal bleeding, and subcutaneous phlegmons below the larynx.
"Eight of the fifteen patients vomited after Rutenol up to seven times a day.
Mortality was extraordinarily high, with 53.3 per cent. No connection showed between tolerableness and death rate.
Four patients responded well to Rutenol and regained their health; three responded and died. No complications appeared in any of these cases. Eight patients vomited after Rutenol; three of them regained their health; the five others died.
"The absolute quantity of the prescriptions administered varied between four and twenty-four grams; hence the prescribed minimum quantity of six single doses of four grams each was in no case undercut. In most cases total dosing was considerably higher. The maximum was reached with 24,14, 4,24,14,8 and 17, 6 grams in the cases 1,2,3,4, and 7, where Rutenol was already used as a prophylactic during the incubation time (two of these patients regained their health; two died), as well as in Case Number 10, who stood the drug, after it was reduced to one to two grams a day in spite of vomiting and nausea, and recovered from his spotted fever of medium severity."
I read this to show the extent to which these patients suffered, not only from the disease itself but from the drugs which they were administering to them. We can see from this the complications of Bronchial pneumonia, nephritis, intestinal bleeding, and subcutaneous phlegmons below the larynx.
On the next page, that is, Page 27, you see the fifteen so-called typhus patients who were given the drug Acridin, 3582, by mouth; and on Page 28 we have a short account of their complications. "The complications were parotitis, nephritis, in one case gangrene of the shank, furunculosis, bronchitis, and decubital sores.
"The tolerance was by far less favorable than with Rutenol. Thirteen patients vomited after taking it (up to seven times a day).
"Again mortality was very high with 53.3 per cent. Among the dead were also the only two patients who stood the prescription well. Of those who vomited after its administration, seven recovered their health while six died. Also in this respect no elucidating conclusions whatever may be drawn.
"The prescribed absolute quantities of the drug amounted to between 2.5 grams and 17.
25 grams. In five cases it was already administered as a prophylactic during the incubation time."
At the bottom of the page we find that they had nine so-called typhus patients who were not administered either of these drugs. They were the socalled control group. They were the poor unfortunates who were given Typhus and nothing to help them combat the disease. So we find that fifteen were given the drug Rutenol; fifteen, Acridin; and nine were given nothing whatsoever.
On the next page, 29, we see the reaction which they observed on the control group: "With the persons not treated 'specifically with Acridin derivates," vomiting over three days occurred in one case. This is proof also for this epidemic that there are cases of cerebral vomiting which are not to be traced back to treatment with drugs. Still, the extraordinary frequency of vomiting of persons treated with Acridin and Rutenol seems to us not to be cerebrally guided but stomachally.
"Mortality among the third group of spotted fever patients, who, during the same epidemic, remained without Rutenol or Nitro-acridin treatment, was, as can be seem from the table, only two per cent higher; that is to say, fiftysix per cent. Considering the small number of persons under observation, reference in percentage was only used on account of the better possibility of comparison--we are well aware of the medium error. The complications--bronchitis and decubital sores--must not be hold responsible for the lethal exitus of the cases. Death occurred either due to acute weakness of the heart or as a result of gradual failure of the circulation.
"To obtain a comparison between the effects of the two drugs and the course of the non-treated cases as regards temperature and pulse, we drew up an average fever and pulse curve for each group on top of one another. Application of the photographic shadow method to obtain an average curve was not possible."
I omit reading the rest of the document. I don't think it would be useful. We note that this report was concluded on 20 August 1944. There are a number of charts attached to the document and it is completed by Page 37 of the English Document Book.
Now, the only question which we have with respect to this exhibit is whether or not this disease, typhus, was naturally or artificially contracted by the thirty-nine experimental subjects. I take it no crime was committed if in fact these thirty-nine unfortunate people just contracted the disease in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp and then were used as experimental subjects to test the reactions of these two drugs, Rutenol and Acridin. I say the prosecution will so assume. But that was not the case. These men were artifically infected and in fact murdered; and to prove that I would like at this time to introduce Document NO-265, Prosecution Exhibit 287.
DR. FRITZ FLEMMING: Dr. Flemming, counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky. I object to the submission of the Document 265 since it is a fraud. I should like the Tribunal to note the entry of the 29th of December, 1941. In this entry, the defendant Mrugowsky is called an SS-Standartenfuehrer. In Exhibit Number 29 of the prosecution, which was presented by the Prosecution, it was established that Mrugowsky was only on the 1st of June 1942 appointed a Standartenfuehrer. Mrugowsky was the direct superior of Ding from whom this document allegedly originates. Ding certainly knew the rank of his immediate superior and knew it exactly. It is therefore out of the question that he would call Mrugowsky on the 29th of December, 1941, a Standartenfuehrer and would call him so in an entry in his diary.
If in fact Mrugowsky was only promoted to a Standartenfuehrer months later, in the same entry of the 29th of December, 1941, the president professor Gildemeister is mentioned, and he is mentioned as the president of the Robert Koch Institute (Reichs Institution To Combat Contagious Diseases). Prof. Gildemeister on the 29th of December, 1941, was not yet the president but mereley the vice-president; and the Robert Koch Institute at that time was yet a Reichs institution, but it was merely a Prussian institute which had the other name of Prussian Institute To Combat Contagious Disease and then as "Robert Koch" only on the 1st of April, 1942; that is, three months later the Robert Koch Institute was promoted as a Reich institution, and Reich Prof.
Gildemeister was nominated president.
I should further like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the entry of the 9th of January, 1943; and I quote: "By order of the Surgeon General of the Waffen SS, SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS Dr. Genzken, the hitherto existing Spotted Fever Research Station at the concentration camp Buchenwald becomes the "Department for Spotted Fever and Virus Research." It can be seen from that until the 9th of January, 1943, the department headed by Ding in Buchenwald had the name of Spotted Fever Experimental Station in the concentration camp of Buchenwald.
I ask the High Tribunal now to look at the heading of the diary. It says, "Diary of the division for research of spotted fever and virus at the Institute of Hygiene of the Waffen SS." This title must have been written before the date of the 29th of December, 1941, more than one year before the division actually received the name of Division for Research of Spotted Fever0 and Virus; and at that time already this name is used in the heading. Since Ding must have known the name of the department of which he was the head, it is quite out of the question that this diary can have originated from him; and it is impossible that it was written on those days as are designated in the diary.
I then ask the High Tribunal to look once more at the entry of the 9th of January, 1943. Dr. Genzken is called SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS. However, looking at the exhibit of the prosecution, Number 24, which has been submitted to the Tribunal, it can be seen that Dr. Genzken was only on the 30th of January, 1943, promoted to SS Gruppenfuehrer and Major General of the Waffen SS. Genzken was the disciplinary superior of Ding. Ding must have known his rank exactly for that reason. For that reason, too, it is out of the question that this diary can have originated from Ding and that it was actually used as a diary.
The particular point of a diary is that entries are being made correctly and that the entries are made at the time when the man who does make the entries has them completely in his memory and in addition the man who is making the entries, when writing down the individual facts, does not know what effect these facts will have at a later date.
So that a diary always represents an assumption of an objective report.
If someone more than one year later, as has been done in the case which is before us, makes an entry, and if this entry then gives the artificial appearance of a diary, and if he then in addition adds the title of "Diary," then the reason can only be an intention of deceit; and if such a deceit was intended and for this purpose, a mock diary was created, then the individual entries in this diary are made in such a manner as serve the purposes of the man who wants to commit a deceit. According to my opinion, such a fraud cannot be admitted into evidence.
In order to complete my statement, I may mention that further improbabilities are contained in this diary which, however, are not of such illustrative nature as the ones which I have just mentioned; and I therefore will not mention the others at the moment.
I should again like to point out that the diary was written with a typewriter, so we are not concerned with a diary in a book form but we are concerned with flyleaves, loose flyleaves; and the possibility has always existed that they were changed over. For that reason, I ask the High Tribunal before deciding the admissibility of this document to order the prosecution that they submit the original of that socalled diary and in addition that they state in what manner this diary reached their hands. If they received it from a third party, then there is a possibility and danger that leaves were exchanged.
MR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, I might remark that the prosecution somewhat resents the light use of the word "fraud" without some further explanation of what the defense attorney has in mind. I do not know precisely where this document was obtained. It purports to be an original. I shall ascertain in the interim between the recess now and 1:30 precisely where it came from and the facts surrounding it.
JUDGE SEBRING: Do you have in your hands the original?
MR. McHANEY: I have it in my hand, yes; and on each page or substantially each page you will see the name of Dr. Ding or Dr. Schuler, after he changed his name. I would also like to point up the very obvious weakness of the argument made by defense counsel. It is sheer supposition that these entries were made from day to day. As a matter of fact, the diary itself conclusively shows that they were not so made. A great number of these experiments which were carried out show in the entries that they were not made from day to day. For instance, just take as an example Page 49 of your English Document Book. There you see a certain typhus experimental series running from the 8th of March, 1944, to the 18th of March, 1944, the entry appearing under those dates. So quite obviously we just are arguing about something we don't know when we try to conjecture as to when these entries were made.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. McHaney, do you have in evidence or in the possession of the prosecution other documents signed by Dr. Ding in what is admittedly his handwriting so that the Court may have the opportunity to compare the signatures with the signatures appearing in this purported diary?
MR. McHANEY: We do, your Honor. The Prosecution Exhibit 283 is, as you will recall, an affidavit signed by the deceased Dr. Schuler; and it has a very pronounced and distinguishable characteristic. Now, in the diary you will find that the greater part of it is signed by Dr. Ding but the last number of entries, beginning late in 1944, are signed by Dr. Schuler, although they are erroneously translated in the translation before the Tribunal as Dr. Kluber. That is because it is very difficult to read his signature; but it is Dr. Schuler, who is the same as Dr. Ding.
I do not know offhand if we have a sample of the signature of Dr. Ding in evidence. I rather think that we do have one and can possibly put it in evidence. I would also like to point out, though, that this argument about Mrugowsky not being a Standartenfurhrer on such and such a date; that he was an Oberfuehrer or something of that sort, while it may indicate that the entries were not made on that particular day, indicates nothing more and certainly points to no fraud.
I was just about to point to entries made on this report of Ding's which I have already read into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 286, which, as you will recall, dealt with thirty-nine experiments on persons afflicted with typhus with the drugs Acridin and Rutenol from April to May, 1943; and I can point to the very place in that diary which substantiates this report written by Ding, which certainly is not contested by the defense; and the entry in the diary corroborates this, that they did on the date here mentioned experiment on precisely thirtynine people, fifteen with Acridin, fifteen with Rutenol, just as it is reported in Prosecution Exhibit 286. And so it appears in the diary; and it also appears that all thirty-nine were artificially infected with typhus and that more than half of them were so murdered.
So if we are to engage in arguments about when these entries were made, I submit that is a fairly forceful argument for the authenticity of this document.
DR. FLEMMING: I may point out that as a matter of course it is possible that some of the entries actually are in compliance with the facts; but the fact alone that more than one year has elapsed before the division received their real name and that this wrong name was used in the title, this fact alone shows that it cannot be a diary. It is quite possible and I submit that it is a matter of course that the prosecution has received this diary and it was called a diary when they received it; but I still maintain that the person who produced this diary has falsified it for certain purposes. I think that I have proved that through the inexactitudes which cannot be explained.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now adjourn for the noon recess. In the meantime the prosecution may find some signatures of Dr. Ding which might conveniently be introduced in evidence. The Court will resume and take up its ruling on this matter at 1:30 o'clock. We will now recess until then.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, before the luncheon recess, the Prosecution had offered Document Number 265 as Prosecution Exhibit Number 178. This offer had been contested by Dr. Flemming, Counsel for the Defendant Mrugowsky. I told the Tribunal I would ascertain the source of this document during the recess.
This document was secured by agents of the Office of Chief Counsel from one Eugene Kogan. Kogan will take the stand and testify later in the afternoon and will tell you that he was the First Clerk to the deceased Dr. Ding-Schuler, and that this document was secured by him 2 April 1945 in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp, and that it has been in his custody since that date with the exception of a short time when it was microfilmed by an organization known as FIAT which is a Joint Intelligence operation of the United States and British Army.
It was continuously in his possession up until the time the Office of Chief Counsel secured it from him. However, this purporst to be an original German document. It is signed by the deceased Dr. Ding-Schuler; accordingly, for reasons which are satisfactory to the Prosecution, we have offered it before Kogan takes the stand on the around that it is an original and that it is admissable under the certificate we customarily attach to captured German documents.
The Tribunal also requested that I secure samples of the signature of Dr. Ding; samples of his signature when he was known as Dr. Schuler also. Upon re-examination of the record I find that we have samples of those signatures already in the record and I take it that the genuiness of these signatures is not contested bu Defense Counsel.
Prosecution Exhibit Number 284 contains in the lower left hand corner the signature of Dr. Ding.
Prosecution Exhibit Number 283 contains the signature of Dr. Schuler and I submit that both of these signatures are rather unique. Now we will pass up Document Number 265 which has been offered as Prosecution Exhibit Number 287 and which is the Diary kept by the deceased Schuler on experiments at Buchenwald.
On substantially all of the pages of this diary there appears either the signature of Dr. Ding or of Dr. Schuler. I will again pass this document to the Tribunal. I will point out the first time the name "Dr. Schuler" appears is on Page 25 of this Document Number 265.
On the preceding pages appear the name, "Dr. Ding." I think that you will find that the similarity between the uncontested signatures of Ding and Schuler and those appearing in the contested exhibit are almost similar.
THE PRESIDENT: The objections to the admission in evidence of this exhibit are overruled. The document will be admitted.
MR. McHANEY: Before reading the earlier portions of the Ding Diary, I would like to remind the Tribunal that Prosecution Exhibit 286 was the paper written by Dr. Ding on his experiments on typhus patients with the drugs Acridin and Rutenol. The Tribunal will recall that the paper states that these experiments were made from April to May, 1943, and that 39 persons were used in these experiments.
You will also recall that 15 were given the drug Rutenol and 15 Acridin; 9 were given neither and retained as a so-called control.
I would therefore ask the Tribunal to turn to Page 46 of the English Document Book which shows the entries on 13 and 14 April 1943 in the Ding Diary. We shall see what an ingenious thought this Ding Diary is inasmuch as it very exactly reports the experiments in Ding's papers submitted to Reicharzt and SS Police on the 17 of November, 1944.
Permission was then asked to publish a paper.
This entry reads:
"Unit of SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Ding ordered to I. G. Farbenindustrie A. G. Hoechst. Conference with Prof. Lautenschlaeger, Dr. Weber, and Dr. Fussgaenger about the experimental series 'Akridin Granulat and Rutenol' in the concentration camp Buchenwald.
"Visit to Geheimrat Otto and Prof Prigge in the institute for experimental therapeutics in Frankfurt-on-Main.
"24 April 1943:
"Therapeutic experiments Akridin-Granulat (A-GR2) and Rutenol (R-2) "To carry out the therapeutic experiments Akridin-Granulat and Rutenol 30 persons (15 each) and 9 persons for control were infected by intravenous injection of 2 cubic centimeters each of fresh blood of a spotted fever sick person.
All experimental persons got very serious spotted fever.
"1 June 1943:
"Charts of case history completed.
The experimental series was concluded 21 deaths (8 with Akridin-Granulat) (8 with Rutenol) (5 control) (signed) Dr. Ding SS-Sturmbannfueher" Now I say to the Court that it is absurb to urge that this document is anything in the nature of a fraud.
Here we have two completely independent documents reporting about the selfsame experiments carried out in April and May of 1943, the same number of persons, the same number of controls, the same drugs, the same date, and we see that these 39 unfortunate people did not contract this disease naturally. The first entry here makes very clear that all 39 were infected by intravenuous injections of 2 cubic centimeters each of fresh blood of a spotted fever sick person. We can, therefore, see that the stamp with the name Poppendick on the original paper submitted by Dr. Ding for his approval for publication carried somewhat more than usual significance.
I might also remark with respect to this paper written by Dr. Ding and submitted to Poppendick for approval that it states therein that the treatment through the use of these drugs was started during the incubation period. I am advised, and I suggest to the Tribunal and to the defendants that in and of itself indicates on the face of the paper that these people were artificially infected with typhus and that even if we did not have the very interesting Ding Diary it would be sufficient to prove that these experiments were criminal, and why is that? The incubation period means before the symptoms of the disease appeared. Now, how could these men know that these persons in the Buchenwald Concentration Camp had typhus during the incubation period unless they themselves had infected these persons? If they had contracted the disease naturally, during the incubation period no symptoms appeared and it was not possible to ascertain that they had the disease typhus at that time. But we need not rely upon such medical facts because we have the Ding Diary and that makes perfectly clear what was done during the course of those particular experiments in April and May of 1943.
I would like at this time to go back to the beginning of the Diary and read from it at some length. On the first page we find the years 1941/42, "Diary of the division for research of spotted fever and virus at the Institute of Hygiene of the Waffen SS." This is on page 38 of the English document book. The first entry, and certainly a most interesting one, is dated 29 December 1941:
"Conference between army sanitation inspector, GeneralChief Surgeon Professor Dr. Handloser; states secretary for the department of health of the Reich-SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Conti; president Professor Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute (Reichs Institution to combat contagious diseases) and SS-Standartenfuehrer and lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky of the Institute of Hygiene Waffen-SS, Berlin.
"It has been established that the need exists, to test the efficacy of, and resistance of the human body to, the spotted fever serum extracted from egg yolks. Since tests on animals are not of sufficient value, tests on human beings must be carried out."
Here we see a meeting of these distinguished gentlemen in which it is decided that animal tests have not been sufficient and to work on human beings. And what are they going to do? Are they just going to inject this serum and see what the reaction of the human body to the serum alone is? Not at all. They are testing the efficacy of the human body, the efficacy of the serum as well as the resistance of the human body to the serum. And that, if Your Honors please, means simply that they were going to infect the test subjects with typhus following the innoculation to test how efficient the vaccine was. And that is precisely what happened. The defendant Handloser participated in this conference, Professor Gildemeister of the Robert Koch Institute participated in this conference and his closest collaborater in this field was the defendant Rose, the vice-president of the Robert Koch Institute. The defendant Mrugowsky was there, the deceased Dr. Conti, the superior of the defendant Blome was there; and all together, as the responsible agents of the German government, they decided that these criminal experiments should be carried out. The Diary continues:
"2 Jan. 42:
"The concentration camp Buchenwald is chosen for testing the spotted fever serums. SS-Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding is charged with these tests. "5 Jan. 42:
"Preliminary test A:
"Preliminary test, to determine the surest and most practical way of infecting human beings artificially. Five humans for test purposes received intramuscular and subcutaneous injections of virus in doses of 1 cubic centimeter. Infection was not possible..." And the signature of Ding appears after those 3 entries.
The first step they took in carrying out the project decided upon at this conference was to find out how they could artificially infest those unfortunate experimental subjects with typhus. So let us not hear the defense urge that this Institute was established simply for the purpose of testing the reaction of the human body to the serum itself.
"10 Jan. 42:
"Preliminary test B:
"Preliminary test to establish a sure means of infection:
"Much as in small pox vaccination, 5 persons were infected with virus through 2 superficial and 2 deeper cuts in the upper arm.
"All of the humans used for this test fell ill with true spotted fever. Incubation period 2 to 6 days.
"20 Jan. 42:
"Preliminary report of reactions of vaccinations. Through continually produced blood counts a strong neutrophile Linksverschiebung Stabkernige was discovered.
"2 Feb. 42:
"Chart of case history of the preliminary tests to establish a sure means of infection were sent to Berlin.
"1 death out of 5 sick."
"6 Jan 42 "1 Feb 42 "Spotted fever vaccination material - Research Series I "Execution of vaccination for the immunization from spotted fever, using the following vaccines:
"1) 31 persons with Weigl-vaccine from the intestines of lice of the institute for spotted ver and virus research at the Supreme Command Army (OKH) Crakow..."
And if I may pass over we can note that their vaccine was being obtained from the same Dr. Eyer who I mentioned earlier, the subordinate of the defendant Handloser, who had participated in the meeting which decided upon these experiments not 30 days earlier.
"2) 35 persons with vaccine from Huehnereidottersackkulturen made by the process Cox. Gildemeister & Haagen.
"3) 35 persons with vaccine 'Behring Mornal' (1 egg bloated (aufgeschwemmt) to 450 cubic centimeters caccine. Mixture of 70% Rickettsia Mooseri and 30% Ricksettsie Prowazeki).
"4) 34 persons with (Behring Normal' 'Behring Strong' (1 1 egg bloated to 250 cubic centimeters).
"5) 10 persons for control..."
Always we find we have these unfortunate control persons who received no protective innoculation whatsoever.
Always we find that we have these unfortunate control persons, who received no protective innoculations whatsoever.
"3 March 1942:
"All persons vaccinated for immunization between 6 January 1942 and 1 February 1942, and the ten persons for control, were infected with a virus culture of Rickettsiz-Prowazeki, in the presence of president, Professor Gildemeister. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer (Captain) Dr. Ding infected himself in the process (laboratory accident)."
So here we find that not only was Professor Gildemeister in the meeting that outlined this program but he also appeared in person on March 3rd, 1942, to see how things were going and in his presence these persons were infected with typhus.
"17 March 1942:
"Visit of Prof. Gildemeister and Prof. Rose (Department head for tropical medicine of the Robert Koch Institute at the experimental station. All persons experimented on fell sick with spotted fever, except two, who, the fact was established later, already had been sick with spotted fever during an epidemic at the police prison in Berlin. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Dr. Ding fell sick with spotted fever and lies at the hospital in Berlin. SS Hauptsturmfuehrer Hoven, station medical officer of the Waffen SS in Weimar, supervises in the meantime the stations (Block 44 and 49)."
So we find that the Defendant Rose visited Buchenwald with his friend and superior, Prof. Gildemeister and watched these experiments, which included the injections on the concentration camp inmates. We also see from this entry that the defendant Hoven took over for the first time in the experimental station and the defendant Rost won't deny that he made this visit to Buchenwald. He will admit now that he was there.
"19 April 1942:
"Final report on the first spotted fever vaccine research series: The stone block #45 was made available for the purpose of these spotted fever experiments.
5 deaths (3 under control) 1 with "Behring Normal" 1 with "Behring Strong" (stark) "19 August 1942 4 September 1942;"Spotted fever vaccine, research series 11;"Execution of vaccination for the immunization from spotted fever, using the f 11 wing vaccines:
"1) 20 persons with vaccines, made by the process of Durane and Giroud (Pasteur Institute, Paris) from rabbit lungs.
"2) 20 persons with vaccine, made by the process of Combiescu, Zetta and collaborators from dog lungs. (Producer: Contacuzine, Bucharest). (This vaccine was made available by Prof. Rose, who received it from Navy Doctor Prof, Ruge from Bucharest)."
So we may conclude that Prof. Rose was impressed by what he saw on March 17, 1942, and is now aiding in the criminal conspiracy by supplying them with vaccine to be tested.
"15 October 1942:
"Artificial infection of all persons, vaccinated for immunization between 19 September 1942 and 4 October 1942, and 19 persons for control with Eidottersack Virus (Rickettsia Prewazeki)."
"25 October 1942:
"The infection has started on all persons experimented on," "20 May 1942:
"Charts of case history sent to Berlin.
"4 deaths of control persons."
I would like to pause here to refer again to the objection to this document. It seems to be rather obvious that this diary was not kept on a day to day basis because from the 20th of May 1942 to 19 August 1942 appear only about four entries and to them there is only the signature of Dr. Ding, so I assume it is entirely possible that inasmuch as six or seven months elapsed before the formal entries were made in the diary, these entries were quite obviously made from work notes which were kept by Dr. Ding.