Most of them said the more they drank the thirstier they got. For instance, Hlava said that, and Winter said it. The thirst was quenched only temporarily. Many said that they had diarrhea. In other words, what we find here is what one would expect to find with the Berka method.
Q. Dr. Shaefer, I shall put Document No.28 to you, this will be Exhibit No. 31.
A. These are directions for using Berkatit, signed personally by Mr. Berka. These are the instructions that he gave me at that time. From these instructions for use one can see one or two very important points. It says here under the heading "Clinical experiments", I quote:
"Clinical experiments have shown that in case of distress at sea it will be advisable to start at once with the drinking; thus the palate becomes gradually accustomed to the potion, and tho strain on the kidneys does not occur in one shock but increases gradually."
The main emphasis lies here on the phrase "the strain on the kidneys" this proves With the Berka method the salt still has to be eliminated by the kidneys. At the conclusion of the instructions for use, it says:
"Berkatit has, at the same time, a high food value and can be taken as a food instead of hard candy. Berkatit contains vitamins."
I, myself, have eaten Berkatit, and it was in effect nothing but hard candy.
Q. Dr. Schaefer, in the discussion on 19 and 20 May, 1944, what opinion did you express about Berkatit?
A. Mr. Berka and I had a rather vehement argument. I put his own instructions for use to him and also confronted him with Oberstarzt von Sirany's experiments. I told him that his preparation was simply something that covered up the natural taste of sea water and consequently was much more dangerous than sea water itself, because the soldiers would have the illusion that they could drink unlimited quantities of it. However, Mr. Berka was not to be persuaded and come forward with medical explanations which he did not even understand himself.
Q. I should now like to put in Documents Nos. 29,30, and 31. Document No. 29 will become Exhibit No. 32, Document No. 30 will be come Exhibit No. 33, and Document 31 will become Exhibit No. 34.
These are affidavits from persons who took part in the conferences. These are representatives of the Navy who know a little bit about the way in which these discussions wore carried on. From what they say it can be seen that the struggle between the doctors of the Luftwaffe and the technical office was very violent at this meeting and that Schaefer took part in it.
From Exhibit No. 32, I should like to road a part of the affidavit of Dr. Kurt Liesche. This is the 12th or 13th line:
"I remember that the May session 1944 consisted mainly of a lively discussion between technical and medical representatives of the Luftwaffe. The physicians of the Luftwaffe and also the physicians of the Navy-as far as they made themselves hoard raised serious objections against the Berkatit process. In this connection physiological questions entered the discussion, on which, owing to my training, I could not give an expert opinion.
"The technical representatives of the Luftwaffe had made Berkatit experiments on living humans in a hospital of the Luftwaffe already before the May session. No one suffered health damages at this occasion. The physicians of the Luftwaffe had considerable objections against the procedure of the experiments and discussed those in a specialized manner which I could not follow. I had the impression that all the other participants of the meeting were merely listeners and that some of them did not approve of the sharp controversy between the physicians and the technicians. The physiologists of the Luftwaffe attacked the technical experts in a very pointed manner and forbade any non-professional interference with their specialized sphere of work. I cannot recall the literal statements of any of the physicians."
Then from Exhibit No. 33, the affidavit by Richard Handstein I should like to read only a part. I quote: from the fourth line of the second paragraph:
"The debate was conducted among members of the Luftwaffe. I can still remember Stabsingenieur Berka, who defended his own procedure.
In opposition to him, a young physician of the Luftwaffe upheld a different opinion. This may have been Schaefer. This young physician argued with physiological reasons, which, however, I do not remember in detail. I know nothing regarding the details of possibly planned series of experiments."
JUDGE SEBRING: Just a moment, counsel. I notice that several of the affiants who have submitted affidavits here that their names appear in Prosecution Document No. 177, Prosecution Exhibit No.133, Document Book No. 5, as being recorded "Present" at the May meeting. I do not notice the name of this affiant, Richard Handstein; can you explain that, please?
DR. PELCKMANN: I myself failed to notice that, Your Honor. It is possible that this record is faulty and that Handstein was present and was not listed. He, himself, speaks in his affidavit of a meeting in the spring of 1944 in the Air Ministry. I personally assume that that is the same meeting, and it is possible that his name is not mentioned.
JUDGE SEBRING: Could it be that tho affiant Richard Handstein is one and the same as Haunstein, who appears as the ninth name in Prosecution Exhibit No. 133?
DR PELCKMANN: Yes, it is perfectly possible that this name Haunstein is really Handstein. If this copy of Document No. 177 is correct, then the mistake was made in the original minutes of this mooting. I thank Your Honor for calling this to my attention. I shall look again at the original in order to ascertain whether the. name is set down falsely in my document.
According to his own signature, the man's name is Handstein that is in the affidavit, which I am putting in and in the original of Document 177 of the Prosecution the name is Haunstein.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q. Dr. Schaefer, were you able to express your point of view regarding the Berka method, although Becker-Freyseng had already expressed his? 8387
A. Yes.
Q. How can you substantiate in any other way your statement here that you opposed tho Berkatit method.
A. I was so convinced of the nonsensicalness of the Berka method that I said that it was entirely ineffective and that this was so obvious that there was no point in experimenting with it.
Q. Then, you expressed the opinion that such experiments would be completely unnecessary.
A. Yes, I did and for that reason I was not among the members of the committee which was to prepare for these experiments, es can be seen from this record of the meeting of the 19th and 20th.
Q. You mean to say that you did not become a member of that committee?
A. Yes, that is right. This was a group of people who were ready for some sort of compromise.
Q. Did you not have some difficulties on tho 20th of expressing your opposition again?
A. Yes, of course I did, because tho Technical Office, which had come to recognize me as tho most radical opponent of tho Borka method, was in charge of the meeting. Well, that is to say Christensen was presiding and he simply would not give me the floor, and since I was an Unterarzt, a non-commissioned officer, I could not take it on my own initiative.
Q. And you were even threatened once; were you not?
A. Yes, at the conclusion of the discussion, after the Technical Office saw that I was trying to portray the experiments as senseless, Schickler told me that if I went on in this same direction I would have to explain my actions to Milch and to answer tho charge of sabotage.
DR. PELCKMANN: Becker-Freyseng has already stated on the stand that Schaefer told him this later.
Q. Was there a discussion at this meeting of the 20th of the fact that human experiments were to be carried out with the Wofatit method?
A. No. Even Herr Berka himself saw that the Wofatit method was a good one.
DR. PELCKMANN: I can again, Your Honors, draw your attention to Document 177, Exhibit 133, and I draw your attention to the fact that there is no mention there of any experiments with Wofatit.
Q. Did you have any interest in seeing to it that experiments should be carried out with Wofatit?
A. No, none whatsoever, because I had nothing to do with Wofatit.
Q. Perhaps this would have been out of some personal interest to you simply to prove how good Wofatit was and how poor Berkatit was?
A. Well, that would have been simply a ridiculous ambition on my part.
Q. At any rate, although the chairman, Christensen, limited you more and more, nevertheless, on the 20th you did state your opinion that the experiments with Berkatit were completely unnecessary and useless?
A. Yes, that is so, and the suggestion was then made that Dr. Eppinger should then be put in as director of future experiments, and I then said to myself that, if Eppinger came to Berlin, he would kick up quite a rumpus because he had been given any trouble or been bothered at all in such a useless affair.
Q. Now after the 20 May meeting did you still do everything you could to prevent experiments being carried out, particularly experiments with prisoners, whatever sort they might be?
A. Yes. In a telephone conversation with Becker-Freyseng I expressed my misgivings.
DR. PELCKMANN: In this connection I should like to return to Exhibit 19, Document 39, an affidavit of Mrs. Koenig in the supplementary document book. Since I have already read the first part of this affi davit, I shall read the rest.
Page 125a:
"I remember well how Dr. Schaefer at the beginning of 1944 returned in an enraged state from Vienna where he had informed himself on the development of the experiments with the Berka preparation. He was furious at the stupidity of some men who had even proposed such a thing and he told me that this preparation merely altered the taste and that he would have nothing to do with this charlatanry.
"Based on the notes of the experiment by Dr. von Sirany Dr. Schaefer dictated to me his views on it which he consequently took to the medical inspectorate at Salow to report on it to his superiors. Some time later Dr. Schaefer returned home in an excited state and said something like this: 'Today there was a violent quarrel. Those idiots cannot be convinced by anything, and the naval people too have no idea of physiology. For some unknown reason new experiments are to be made. I hope I shall have nothing to do with these. It has even been proposed to make the experiments on prisoners.'
"Dr. Schaefer then immediately called up Dr. Becker-Freyseng. I was in the same room and I remember this conversation very well because I repeatedly had to ask Dr. Schaefer to keep his temper and not to shout so much. Among other things he said that he simply could not understand why new experiments should be made, and if they have to be made, they should at least not be performed on prisoners.
"After ending this conversation Dr. Schaefer told me that some other experts were to be called in and that he hoped that they would decide to quash the whole matter. As a minor official in the Luftwaffe he was sorry he could do no more than he had already done to prevent this nonsense. Dr. Schaefer stated in various conversations that he was opposed to any experiments on prisoners on principle as in such cases one could never be sure whether the experiments were really made on volunteers and not by exercising pressure in view of the more or less disagreeable condition under which they were living. Besides, his political principles made him averse to everything in any way connected with concentration camps.
"Upon my Question whether these experiments with the Berka preparation caused severe pains, Dr. Schaefer told me that they were not agreeable but in no way dangerous and would not cause any lasting damages, provided they were made under sensible medical supervision. He added, however, that in spite of everything he was opposed to such experiments because he rejected everything connected with the concentration camps."
I should like to read the following lines at a later time. As can be seen from this affidavit, another effort was made to examine the necessity of these experiments, namely, by receiving testimony from medical specialists.
Now I put in Documents 32 and 33 in order to show what the medical specialists did in this matter. First I should like to read Document No. 33 which will become Exhibit 35; it is on page 116. Document No. 32 will become Exhibit 36; it is on page 113. Professor Dr. Hans Netter from Kiel says the following:
"Towards the end of May 1944, at the request of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and without having been informed of the details of the questions which would be dealt with, I was asked to take part in a conference concerned with making sea water potable.
"As far as I can remember, the following persons were present, apart from myself: Professor Heubner, Professor Eppinger, Professor Schwiegk, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, Dr. Schaefer, another representative of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe, the engineer Berka and one or two other representatives of the technical office.
"At the beginning of the conference the possibility was discussed of supplying with water persons in distress at sea, and the discussion turned only gradually to the two methods which obviously had already been considered before by the Luftwaffe. We, the as yet insufficiently orientated participants, learned about them by the slogans Berkatit and Wofatit.
"At first the Berkatit method invented by the engineer Berka was generally declined by the Luftwaffe physicians including Dr. BeckerFreyseng and Dr. Schaefer.
I was under the impression that only Professor Eppinger's great authority made it a topic of discussion. Without being able to give factual proof of this, there seemed to be a mutual understanding between Berka and Eppinger. Obviously Eppinger had full confidence in the experiments already carried out by Berka and seemed to be convinced of the value of his method. With regard to this situation, Dr. Becker-Freyseng remarked that the Luftwaffe could have the methods for the rescue of airmen in distress at sea evaluated by preliminary tests on human beings. Nothing was said about the fact that these experiments were to be carried out on prisoners. I thought of volunteers, a very obvious idea, as during the period of my work at an examination point for airmen, which lasted for some years, we dealt nearly exclusively with members of the Luftwaffe who had volunteered.
"In a frequently contradictory and long lasting discussion the participants agreed on a program of experiments, the details of which I can no longer recall. It is out of the question that this conference was based on any previously fixed program. I can no longer recall whether a series of experiments for the evaluation of Wofatit was really agreed on at that time."
And Document 32, Exhibit 36, page 113, reads as follows: --
Q. This, Dr. Schaefer, is the conference of the 25th of May?
A. Yes.
DR. PELCKMANN: "At a conference in the spring of 1944, which was held at the Military Medical Academy, the following took place, as far as I can recall:
"Among the participants were the following men known to me, as far as I remember:
Stabsarzt Dr. Becker-Freyseng Stabsarzt Dr. Schwiegk Unterarzt Dr. Schaefer Engineer Berka Prof.
Dr. Eppinger, Vienna Prof.
Dr. Netter, Kiel and myself; also two or three officers whose names I cannot recall.
Marineoberstabsarzt Professor Dr. Orzechowski from Kiel was invited but did not attend.
"A discussion took place on the use of a preparation for producing potable water from salt water, proposed by engineer Berka. Few details were given about the nature of this process. It was obvious to me, however, that some very high authorities of the military administration very seriously considered the introduction of this preparation while the medical experts who were acquainted with this preparation, particularly Messrs. Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer, and Schwiegk, had serious doubts about its efficacy for it was claimed that this preparation would make salt water potable without eliminating its salt contents. I myself had the same doubts as to the efficacy of this process and Prof. Dr. Netter, who sat next to me, was of the same opinion. The meeting was interrupted by an air raid alarm and was continued standing in a dark basement, while the bombs could be heard exploding and it was impossible to take notes.
"As far as I remember, the outcome of the discussion was that despite all doubts the process as suggested by Mr. Berka was not to be rejected without an investigation for even the slightest success would seem sufficiently important from a military point of view and any such slight benefit should not be rejected. The eminent clinical physician Eppinger in particular upheld the view that the matter was at least worth investigating.
"In the ensuing discussion the general application of the tests was discussed and three groups of experimental persons were suggested; one, those suffering from ordinary thirst; two, those who were given ordinary salt water, and three, those who were to drink salt water which had been treated according to Berka's formula. The discussion then turned to the precautions to be taken to prevent water being obtained during the experiments. Earlier clinical experiments in connection with the water and salt content of the body had shown how necessary those precautions are. There was, of course, complete agreement on the necessity that the experimental persons should be under constant medical supervision to avoid any possible risk to the health and Herr Eppinger therefore suggested that his assistant, Dr. Beiglboeck, who had much experience in the field of metabolism, should be placed in charge of these experiments.
"Some months after this first conference there was a meeting of numerous physicians of the Wehrmacht, presided over by Generalstabsarzt Dr. Schroeder, to which I also was invited. There Dr. Beiglboeck, among others, reported on the outcome of the experiments. This report did not show that the experimental persons had been treated any differently from previous scientific experiments in the same field. It was understood, of course, that in order to carefully supervise the supply of water close supervision had been maintained. The tests showed that the process suggested by Mr. Berka in no way improved the drinking qualities of sea water by people suffering from thirst. The discussion revealed that war experiences had shown that humans can suffer thirst much longer than the earlier doctrine of physiology had taught."
That is Professor Wolfgang Heubner's affidavit, who is at present teaching at the University of Berlin.
BY DR. PELCKMANN:
Q Dr. Schaefer, were you present throughout the entire course of the conference on the 25th of May?
A No. Some time after the discussion began there was an air raid. Everyone ran into the cellar including those participating in this discussion. The cellar was divided into several smaller rooms and. the participants in the discussion broke up into little groups and mixed with the other persons in the house. There were a great many people there, people from everywhere in the Medical Academy.
Q On the 25th of May at this discussion was there discussion of human experiments with Wofatit?
A No.
Q Let me say that Professor Netter's affidavit states the same, that is, Exhibit 35, and. Becker-Freyseng corroborated that as a witness on the stand Dr. Schaefer, Becker-Freyseng and various affidavits have shown us that you were against the Berka method and that you were against experiments on prisoners. You also stated that during this discussion. Now, you stated that on the occasion of the previous conference. Now, why didn't you do so again on the 25th concerning experiments on Luftwaffe personnel or concentration camp inmates?
A On the 25th of May I again said that the Berka method was not useable after several university professors, including persons with a European reputation, such as Professor Eppinger and Huebner, had stated that the Berka method could not be rejected without a further experiment. I, of course, could not present any medical counter-arguments or refutations since I had no military rank nor did I enjoy reputation in science. I was, after all, then simply an employee in private industry.
Q However, you had other reasons which you explained to Mrs. Koenig and which are corroborated in her affidavit, misgivings concerning prisoners?
A There was no mention of prisoners in this discussion and I could not return to something that had been said in a previous discussion and take that occasion to express my private opinions of that experiment on prisoners.
Moreover, such a thing would have been a political attack on National Socialism and its system of concentration camps, which would not be exactly the thing to do in a meeting attended by officers. I don't believe even the most courageous resistance man would have done such a thing.
Q Perhaps you would like to describe to the Tribunal how you had previously been threatened.
A In a discussion that took place with Dr. Christensen before the 19th I had serious differences of opinion and he forbade my interfering in his business and he told me that Oberstarzt von Sirany certainly knew a lot more about these things than some Unterarzt. The man who had a colonel's insignia on his shoulder certainly was scientifically in the right also, and the higher his rank the more right he was.
Then there was my clash with Major Jeworek; not only my clash with him, but also Becker-Freyseng's; and then in addition there was the threat that Schickler made to me at or after the meeting of the 20th. All that would have been necessary then would have been a little note of some sort in the minutes of that meeting and Berka or Christensen would have been able to get their opponent, namely me, out of the way.
Q Then, in other words, you considered it impossible, on the 25th of May, to express you ideological objections to the Berka method?
A Yes, that was quite out of the question.
DR. PELCKMANN: I shall read now the rest of Frau Koenig's affidavit. This is again Exhibit 19 in the supplementary volume in which she discusses Schaefer's disappointment in the failure of the last possibility of preventing these experiments.
In the third paragraph from the end it reads -- this is on page 12*, the first paragraph:
"A short while later Dr. Schaefer returned home soon after a severe air-raid, with the following words which I clearly remember; 'These asses have also failed. I cannot understand what qualifications secured such persons their professorships. I am tired of it and I won't do anymore. The experiments will now probably be made at Brunswick.'
"I also very well remember that Dr. Schaefer returned from a discussion in an engaged state saying that he had just come from a meeting with officers of the Luftwaffe. He and Dr. Becker-Freyseng had been called saboteurs when declaring the Berka preparation as completely useless. They also had to submit to other strong attacks and the meeting had nearly been broken up."
The threats against Schaefer charging him with sabotage can also be seen from this document and also from Herr Pahl's affidavit, which is Document No. 40 to which I have given Exhibit No. 37. This again is in a supplementary volume and, as I said, this again mentions threats against Schaefer on the charge of sabotage. In the middle of this document -- or, rather, I shall read the third paragraph:
"The so-called transcript of 23 May 1944 (Document No. 177 Exhibit 133) incorrectly reports the discussion on 19 May. One of the most obvious mistakes in this transcript is the mention of a series of experiments which were supposedly to have been agreed upon at that time. Actually, no series of experiments were settled on this day, therefore, also not those listed under Figure 1A--d (6 day period) and as experimental series (12 day period). Not one word was mentioned to the effect that the experimental subjects would be supplied by the Reichsfuehrer-SS or that the experiments were to take place at concentration camps. As the Wofatit method was considered acceptable by all present at the conference, the question of experiments on humans did not arise and was not mentioned. The experimental series with Wofatit was later neither suggested nor ordered by Schaefer.
"During the meeting either Major Jeworek or the Chief of the testing station Travenuende accused Becker-Freyseng and Schaefer of being financially interested in the Wofatit method.
"Becker-Freyseng, Schaefer and I protested against this accusation and got up to leave the meeting. Christensen interceded and thereupon we remained."
I now put in Document 34. This will be Exhibit 38, page 118. This is an affidavit by Professor Hubertus Strughold. This proves that the RSHA, in other words, the Gestapo, took measures against scientists saying that they were saboteurs if they embraced medical opinions that differed from the officially accepted opinion. The affidavit reads:
"In fall 1944, my two collaborators Dr. Heinrich Rose, Luftwaffe Stabsarzt, and Dr. Ingeborg Schmidt investigated the effects of vitamin A, on night vision. They found out that when combined with a sufficient supply of fat vitamin A - when given in normal doses - it improves night vision. From another source, it was discovered that very big doses of vitamin A - when given in certain solution agents - improve the night vision in a way never previously experienced. My collaborators did not confirm this. Thereupon, some time later, the Research Management of the Luftwaffe or the Medical Inspection received a letter from - I believe the SS Sicherungshauptamt or whatever its name was, and in this letter, my collaborators and my Institute were reproached of sabotage. As far as I recall, a correspondence took place between the two agencies named, the subject of which I do not remember in detail. Later I heard no more about it. Anyway, the fact remains that both my scientific collaborators were attacked by the above mentioned organization merely because they could not confirm the results of another research worker. This is a matter unheard of in the field of science."
DR. PELCKMANN: Perhaps at this time, Your Honor, we could break off.
THE PRESIDENT: If you have only three more you may proceed and we will conclude this evening.
DR. PELCKMANN: I have only three more that is correct, your Honor. However, I see that the connecting test in what I intend to present here is so long, it would be better if I present it tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning.
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 3 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHALL: Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshall, have you ascertained that the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHALL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court. Do I understand that the witness Franz Vollhardt will first be called on behalf of the the defendant Becker-Freyseng?
DR. MARX: With the permission of the Tribunal, Mr. President, I should like to call Professor Vollhardt whom the Tribunal has permitted to appear as an expert witness on behalf of defendant Schroeder and Dr. Becker-Freyseng, and which has also been allowed to testify on behalf of defendant Dr. Beiglboeck.
THE PRESIDENT: The marshall will show to the witness stand Franz Vollhardt.
FRANZ VOLLHARDT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Hold up your right hand and be sworn, please, repeating after mo the oath: 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)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may sit down.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. MARX:
Q. Professor, please, would you state your full name.
A. Franz Vollhardt.
Q. Where and when were you born?
A. Munich, 2 May 1872.
Q. Please, would you briefly tell the Tribunal what your scientific activities have been and regarding which special field and since when you have taken a particularly great interest?
A. I am Professor of Internal Medicine at Frankfort and predominantly, I have dealt with the question of circulation, metabolism blood pressure or kidney diseases.
Q. Which are the German Universities where you have been a lecturer?
A. Halle and Frankfort.
Q. Have you been an author of scientific work regarding this special field of activity?
A. Yes.
Q. Have they been circulated and translated in foreign countries and in foreign languages?
A. Yes, they have been translated in Russian, behind my back.
Q. Considering the facts you have just stated, would it be right to say that you have had honors allotted to you in this country and abroad, so would you please tell the Tribunal what types of decoration you have received abroad.
A. I really have to?
Q. Which foreign acadamies and Foreign societies have you been a member of? Professor, I really want you to answer my questions because I am sure my questions pursue certain purposes.
A. I am Honorary Doctor at the Sorbonne, Paris, at Gottingen and Freiburg; and, as far as societies are concerned, there are a lot of them, Medical Society at Edinburg, at Genf, at Luxemburg.
I am an Honorary Member of the University at Santiago, and so on and so forth.
Q. Thank you very much. Then I would be interested to hear from you whether you had connections with the NSDAP and what sort of connections they wore and whether the Party persecuted you in any way. Perhaps, you might answer the last question first.
A. When I was lecturing in Spanish in South America and when I was giving a lecture in Corjoba Argentina, before a medical Congress, I received a telegram to the effect that I had been relieved from my office and the reason given was lack of anti-semitic attitude.
Q. When was that?
A. 1938.
Q. And since when have you once more been reinstated and are you active again?
A. Since 1945.
Q As a full professor?
A Yes, as full professor for Internal Medicine at the University of Frankfurt.
Q Now, Professor, a few questions regarding your own research work. You have dealt particularly with hunger and thirst treatment in the case of kidney diseases. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q So that you have personal medical and scientific experience regarding the observation of human beings when they undergo hunger and thirst treatment?
A Yes.
Q Mr. President, before continuing with the examination of this expert witness I should like to permit myself to make a suggestion. There are two types of possibilities for the examination of Professor Vollhardt regarding questions which interest us here. One possibility, the one which I myself consider the correct one, is that Professor Vollhardt should give us a continuous expert opinion regarding the entire complex of questions which are of interest here, and that at the end I would then permit myself to put a few concluding questions to the expert here as, of course, any defense counsel and prosecutor is entitled to do, too. The other possibility would be that I put a number of individual questions to the expert which would deal with the subject chronologically and technically from a medical point of view. But, that would distort context and would not give as clear a picture of the situation as would the first possibility. I should like therefore, Mr. President, for you to make a decision whether the expert is to give an opinion in the form of one lecture first.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel would propound to the witness a hypothetical question covering the basic facts which here are at issue, and if the witness would answer that hypothetical question without further question from counsel and make his response brief and to the point, and without enlarging too much upon the fact that salt water is not fit to drink and is injurious, which the Tribunal very well knows, we might proceed that way as suggested by counsel.