The man that we are concerned with here, #30, he was discharged by me with a weight of 60 kilograms.........
Q. (Interrupting) Just a moment. Let's stay in Case 23. #30 you can take up later. Do you exclude the possibility that in Case #23 the man you describe in such a condition as indicated by your stenographic notes, is not one and the same man as described by Tschofenik in his affidavit?
A. These stenographic notes refer, first of all, not at all to Case 23 but to Case 30.
Q. Why are they written on the back of case 23?
A. Probably it was lying next to it and I made the notes here before the interruption.
Q. Then, it's Case 30 that the man was in such a condition that he might be one and the same man as outlined by Tschofenik in his affidavit?
A. The man who Tschofenik described did not exist. But these notes refer to Case 30.
Q. I have no further questions today, Your Honor. I will continue the examination tomorrow if you wish to adjourn at this time.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I only want to ask you whether I should order the witness to come again tomorrow. The witness Mettbach.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in that connection, the witness Mettbach, according to the statement of counsel, lives only in Furth, Bavaria, which is only a matter of a mile from here, and I don't see that it will be necessary to call that witness immediately. He could be stalled off until a later date one called at the convenience of the Tribunal inasmuch as he lives only in nearby Furth.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it will be better to wait for that witness until he can be called later since he lives only a few miles from Nurnberg. He will still be available as far as you know as a witness at some later time.
MR. HARDY: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Put these in order. It is called to the attention of all parties that all these records have been impounded and are to be turned over to the custody of the Secretary General.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 12 June 1947)
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 12 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
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. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, will it be possible for the Marshal to move the other microphone down to this table so that we can use it for the purpose of this interrogation?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you bring the movable microphope down?
MR. HARDY: While we're waiting for him to bring the movable microphone down, Your Honor, defense counsel for Earl Brandt has requested permission to interrogate Walter Neff, the witness who appeared before this Tribunal earlier in the prosecution's case in chief. He has filed his application to interrogate Walter Neff and that is agreeable with the prosecution. Defense counsel desires a ruling of the Tribunal granting him permission to interrogate Walter Neff.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Karl Brandt having requested permission to interview Walter Neff and the prosecution having no objection, the Tribunal orders that the request of counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt is granted and defense counsel may interview Walter Neff.
WILHELM BEIGLBOECK - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. HARDY:
Q Professor Beiglboeck, as I understood yesterday, the stenographic notes, which are found on the reverse side of Graph #C-23, refer to Case #30. Is that correct.
A Yes.
Q Then at this time, Your Honor, I would like to have Case #30 marked A, B, and C.
Professor Beiglboeck, on Chart B-30 you have made a mark or an arrow with a blue circle on the end thereof, indicating the beginning of the experiment, and this arrow is drawn in a curved fashion which is rather difficult for me to decipher. Now, could you tell us just when this experiment began? Whether it began on the 22nd day of August, the ninth day of the experiment, or whether it began on the 23rd as indicated by the arrow?
A The experiments all began on the 22nd.
Q How do you account for the irregularity of the arrow which you have drawn in Chart B-30?
A I can't remember any more why I made the sign there.
Q This sign, of course, was made when you evaluated the reports some months after the experiments had been completed at Dachau?
A Yes.
Q I may point out to Your Honors what I am referring to in that Dr, Beiglboeck's arrow to indicate the beginning of the experiments, which he maintains began on the 22nd of August, which coincides with the fact that the blue vertical line under the black blunt line in the middle of the graph on Chart B-30 indicates that the subject received 1000 cc of sea water, which would be more logical to assume that the experiment began either on the 22nd or 21st, rather than as indicated by this irregular arrow.
Now, Professor Beiglboeck, this experimental subject is one who drank 1,000 cc of sea water for a period of how many days?
A For nine days.
Q Is it obvious from Chart B-30 and C-30 that this experimental subject cheated and drank normal water?
A That did happen on the 25th, From the 25th to the 26th he lost only 300 grams of weight. From the 28th to 29th, he lost only 200 grams. Therefore, in those two days, he certainly drank fresh water. From his retrocide it is also visible that the values decrease here again, then it increases, the it decreases again, and then, apparently, he is thirsting again.
Q Then, of course, the lack of indication of excessive urinary output, as opposed to the intake, is indicative that the subject cheated?
A Well, in any case, the urine output is much to small as it is recorded here. It must also be one of the cases who did away with some of the urine output. At first, I thought, when I saw these amounts of urine, that in these cases there was retention due to the salt, and that confused me, and I thought that, at first, some salt is retained, because, in the urine analysis, small amounts of salt were contained in the urine and therefore, at the moment, I was not certain of the course this experiment was taking. For if salt is retained, water can be retained too and, therefore, it is possible too that the loss of weight is slight. Only later on when I calculated the results I found that he must have thrown away some of the urine output.
Q. On the 28th it shows an indication that the subject has lost two kil. of weight; the urinary output would not indicate that he should have lost weight, would it?
A. No.
Q. It that why you state that it is obvious that this subject must have thrown away some of his urine?
A. It become obvious because in the period immediately following the experiments there was no increased elimination of salt. If there had been a retention of salt during the experiment then in the period following the experiment this salt which had been retained would have had to be eliminated; and from that I could recognize that my original opinion that there was retention of salt, and that therefore the amount of urine was reduced, could not be correct, but that the urine must have been thrown away.
Q. On the 28th of August on Chart 3-30, the 15th day of the experiment, we note in the graph section the initials "L.P." What does that mean, doctor?
A. In red pencil that means lumbar puncture.
Q. Can you tell us what was the purpose of performing a lumbar puncture on this subject?
A. At that time he complained somewhat about headaches, and I imagined that if retention of salt had taken place, the salt in the blood as well as in the brain fluid must nave increased; therefore, I believed that if I would undertake a lumbar juncture I could reduce the store of salt in the body fluid. That was the reason.
Q. Now on the 30th of August, as indicated on the Chart C-30, the 17th day of the experiment, we note the familiar red arrow with a red circle on the end thereof, indicating an interruption in the experiment, the initials "H.P." in red pencil; will you tell us why and what that means and why you performed that?
A. H. P. , I have said already, it means that the interruption was made by an intravenous injection of a hypotanic sugar solution, and in some cases salt solution, in the case of thirsting persons.
Q. And then in the same block that is the 30th of August, in Chart C-30, the 17th day of the experiment, we see ******* immediately below the initials "HP" in red pencil in blue pencil the initials "L.P."; will you tell us what that means?
A. In blue it means liver puncture.
Q. Will you toll us what was the purpose of performing a liver puncture on this subject?
A. That was always the same. I have already told you that I made some of these liver punctures because Professor Eppinger told me at the time that one should see whether this slight enlargement if the liver was accompanied by some changes in the liver.
Q. From these charts is there any indication that this patient or subject became ill? I note on the 30th of August on Chart C-30, on the 31st, that his temperature did rise above normal, and then we note of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th of September a considerable drop in temperature; was this subject an ill man?
A. This slight rise in temperature after the conclusion of the experiment happens in very many cases. That is a temperature of 37.4 cent.; that is practically no fever; and later on ho had normal temperatures. Moreover, he very quickly gained weight.
Q. And these descriptive notes in shorthand on the back of Chart C-23, I refer to No. 30, indicate the condition of this subject that is charted here on charts A-30, B-30, and C-30?
A. That is the condition immediately before the discontinuation. That was on the evening of the 30th of August, in other words. The condition which is described here, is the condition of a strong dehydration, that is a thirst condition. The changes which I described here concern the muscles, the hypotanic condition of the muscles, the increase of the reflexes, which are seen on the basis of these changes in the muscles, the dehydration of the mucuous membrane, which I described as dehydration here; a certain apathy, which is expressed by thirst.
Q. Professor Biegelboeck, in these stenographic notes on Line 4, where the erasure has been made from the middle of the line to the end of the line, in these stenographic characters, can you recall now what has been erased, and what appeared here before the erasure?
A. I cannot recall the words, but it was a description of thirst condition. I wrote "Asked for water," and "again and again for water." "The thirst is very extensive," or something like that was written down there too.
Q. Now, doctor you have had the opportunity to think over during the course of last evening your examination yesterday, and you have told this Tribunal that these stenographic notes were altered by yourself here in Nurnberg; are you prepared to toll this Tribunal now just why it became necessary for you to alter these stenographic notes?
A. I ask permission to be allowed to make the following explanation. I changed those notes before these sheets were handed in, that is after they had been returned from Prof. Volhard. I made some changes in these stenographic notes only, and then I told my defense counsel, whom I had not informed about this, as I want to state expressly, we want to withdraw the weight chart.
I was immediately sorry, because I had changed something. I originally had the intention to submit the weight charts of these persons, because I believe from the changed weights alone one can see on the whole how this experiment developed. And then, when I had committed this thoughtless action, immediately my conscience bothered me, and I told my defense counsel I shall not submit this; but I want to state that I did not make any changes in the rest of the report on the course of the experiments; that in the urine amounts, as well as in the temperatures, and expecially in the case of the weights, they are definitely the original values as also in the case of the blood pressure,----- so in what you see here on the front pages of the chart nothing has been changed, since these charts arrived here.
Q. Could you tell us just what was your reason for changing some of the stenographic notes?
A. Because the description as it was hero is a description, which on a person who does not know a condition of thirst, leaves an impression which perhaps is stronger than the actual condition was.
Q. Do you have anything further to say about those alterations, Doctor? You may at this time explain to the Tribunal anything else in connection with those alterations if you wish?
A. Well, I want to state again that I am very sorry that I did it. I, as I said, I only had the intention to submit the charts to show the weights and not because of the other results of the medical examinations, because I am of the opinion that from the weight charts one can recognize without doubt, first, how much weight the experimental subject lost, secondly, one sees from them unequivocally on which days water was drank in between, and thirdly one can see clearly from them that immediately after the conclusion of the experiment in the case of all the experimental subjects there was a gain in weight, and fourthly, one sees that when the persons were discharged in most cases they had again reached their original weight.
BY JUDGE SEBERING:
Q. Well, Doctor, how do you explain the fact that names have been erased from many of these charts?
A. This erasing of the names must have been done before. I did not do that here. On the front pages of these charts I did not change anything here. It is possible that this happened already in Dachau. I can't tell you that. It is possible that later on I erased them too. I did not erase them here.
Q. During the course of an experiment, considering that your experimental subject is one who has been put on a salt water procedure, how much weight will such an experimental subject be expected to lose each day during the course of an experiment?
A. Theoretically one can assume the following: If someone drinks 1,000 cc of sea water, the kidneys, which receive sea water containing 2.7 percent salt water, will eliminate this as a 2 percent solution on the first day or second day; in other words a urine output of 1,350 cc is necessary in order to eliminate the entire amount of salt. In addition, water is eliminated through the skin and through the lungs. One can count op it amounting during the first days to 500 to 600 cc. This elimination of water is then reduced in the following days, that is, considerably restricted. That would be a loss of water of 850 to 950 cc and that would be the loss of water per day. In addition, these experimental subjects lose not only water but through the change in the food they eat they have to lose in weight what a person who is fasting is losing and this amount can be calculated from the experimental group which drank the Schaefer water. These experimental subjects did not lost any water; therefore, they are a suitable group to decide how much is lost through starving. I also calculated these changes in the weight and always deducted that from the entire loss of weight, so that one can from that see how much is lost due to the water. I calculated the following values and found out that through hunger alone on the first day 1,000 cc is lost; on the second day 1950 cc is lost; on the third day 2,400 cc is lost; on the fourth day 2,500 cc is lost; on the fifth day 2,850 cc is lost. This is always the total. Then 3,400 cc on the sixth day, 3,500 cc on the seventh day and 3,780 cc on the eighth day.
These values, which I had gained as average values for the Schaefer group, I compared with the statements made in medical literature and that agrees with the amounts which had so far been observed in loss of weight with fa.sting and thirsting experiments. One thus has to calcu late that an experimental subject on the average loses one and a half kilograms per day if they drink 1,000 cc of sea water.
One has to consider that during the time when the experiments were carried on daily about 500 cc has to be attributed to loss due to starving, so that a gaining of weight and weight remaining on the same level during the experiment mean that considerably more sea water was taken in than was conditioned by hunger. I may perhaps point out some experiments which were carried out relatively well.
Q. I have to ask you that in particular in this. Will the experimental subject be expected each day to lose an increasingly greater amount of weight than on the preceding day?
A. These figures, which I have stated, are always the total in each case; that is, the loss of weight in the preceding time is always added; thus there must be a progressive loss of weight. In a case of fasting it is so that gradually the loss of weight is reduced. That is the difference. Turing the first days they are greater than during the latter days, while the loss of water is not considerably reduced, and if the kidney concentration were found, it is possible that no water is lost through the urine but through the skin and through the lungs about 350 cc are lost. The experiment, which gave more or less successful results, is from this 1,000 cc of sea water group. At the beginning the weight is 67.5; the next day 65, then 63.5, then 61.5 and then 60.3 and here there is a weight loss of one kilogram and I believe that some water had been drunk in between. In that manner the loss of weight would take place if the experiment were continued regularly, while lesser losses of weight, that is, less than one kilogram per day, show in this experiment with certainty water was being drunk.
May I perhaps pull out these charts and in the form of a written report submit them in order to show where from case to case they drank water ?
Q. Here is the thing I am interested in. In the course of an experiment is the place eventually reached theoretically where from a certain day on the loss of weight will be expected to be substantially the same each day instead of progressively greater, or perhaps will a cally he has lost all of the weight that he can and then from day to day thereafter his weight will remain substantially the same?
Do you understand?
A. Yes. This is perhaps true only to a certain extent in the case of thirst experiments. If somebody starves and thirsts, the loss of weight due to the starving is gradually reduced to 200 or 250 grams, but the loss of weight due to the water output becomes progressively smaller in the case of thirst. If we administer salt solution, a certain loss of weight is forced, because the elimination of salt must be accompanied by water. Even if the kidneys were to concentrate very well and if the lung and skin still eliminate very little water, there still must be a loss of weight, due to that and fasting, about one kilogram.
What confused me here was the fact that due to the throwing away of the urine very little salt was eliminated per day. Due to that fact it would have been possible theoretically to save water, and that the loss of weight was caused by the starvation alone. That was the first opinion I had on these losses of weight because I did not know at first that the experimental subjects drank water on the side; therefore, I assume that. In the beginning, therefore, this confusion resulted and therefore the experiment was not always discontinued when the loss of weight was not accordingly, and that is medically possible.
Q. If the defendant is of the opinion that the preparation of any statement or a table of these losses of weight would be helpful to the Tribunal or will throw light on the case now before the Tribunal, such a statement may be prepared and offered to the Tribunal by defense counsel. Its admissibility as evidence will then be considered when it is offered.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I would like to proceed now to Case 25. Would you kindly make that A, B, and C, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding to that, I would like to ask the witness regarding Case 30, in connection with which you made the stenographic notes. What was the age of that experimental subject?
THE WITNESS: He must have been about, as far as I remember, 24 or 25 years old.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you remember his name?
THE WITNESS: I believe you can see that from the chart. Krotschinski was his name.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. Proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Case 25, Professor Beiglboeck, is that a case where the subject was drinking sea water treated by the Berka method?
A. No, it is a case--- Oh, the Berka method, yes. I confused that with the Schaefer method, but it is the Berka method.
Q. Can you tell us whether or not this subject cheated in the course of the experiments?
A. This experimental subject on the 24th and 25th stayed at the same level of weight; therefore, he must have taken in water, a liter of water. Furthermore, from the 26th to the 27th there was a relatively small loss of weight. Furthermore, from the 30th to the 31st there was a loss of weight of only 300 grams; thus he must have drunk at least three times.
Q. Well, now, I note on the 28th of August, in Chart B-25, the 15th day of the experiment, that the temperature of this subject rose above normal and again on the 29th of August his temperature was about normal. Now, in the course of an experiment when a person's temperature increases to that extent would you not consider the fever a good reason for stopping the experiment?
A. The temperature of 37.2 or 37.5 degrees centigrade during an administration of a great amount of table salt is what we call the "table salt fever," "sodium chloride fever." It is not a real lever but a rise in temperature which is caused by the administration of salt.
Q. Now, on the 31st of August which is on chart C25, the 18th day, we note here that by the familiar red arrow with the red circle on the end thereof, that the experiment had been interrupted and then I see a stamp indicating an-x-ray had been taken. Could you tell us the purpose of having the x-ray taken on this date for this subject?
A. This experimental subject had bronchitis: That is, dry bronchitis of a thirsting person. I had an x-ray taken in order to see whether anything else was wrong with the lung but the result of the examination was negative.
Q. The x-ray form with some markings therein contained, under the date 4 September, 22nd day, on Chart C25, purports to be the results of the x-ray ordered the 31st or is this an additional x-ray?
A. That is an additional x-ray. The patient then got a fever three days after the conclusion of the experiment and caused an acute bronchitis and then I again sent him to be x-rayed.
Q. Did this fever that we see, that skyrocketed up to 39.8 give you cause for worry that is indicated on the date, 3rd of September, on Chart C25?
A. Yes, of course. That's why I sent him to be x-rayed, because he had bronchitis.
Q. Who x-rayed this man?
A. I believe it was a French x-ray specialist.
Q. Where was the x-ray taken?
A. In the x-ray room.
Q. That's the room in which Tschofenik worked?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. Now, I note on the date of September 1 that there was no indication of any urinary output of this patient.
A. That probably was not recorded. May I ask you to show me the notebook?
A. Sure.
A. They forgot to record it, on the 25th of August, he had 870 cc's urinary output.
MR. HARDY: I wish the records to show, your Honor, that the urinary output which is lacking on chart C25 for the date , 1 September, is contained in the book which has been referred to as the "black book," indicating that these reports in the book are all a part of the same situation on the reports of these experiments.
Q. What did the two pencil markings in the interior of the diagram under the date, 4 September, on Chart C25 indicate -- that is, the x-ray diagram, the pencil marks contained therein? Do they convey something of significance to you?
A. Well, at that time I received a written report on the examination and from that diagram I can today no longer state what the results were exactly.
Q. Now, I also note that the pulse curve terminates from the beginning of the 4th of September but the fever curve continues until the 6th of September. What is your explanation for that?
A. Probably, the pulse was no longer taken, only the temperature, because the patient had a fever.
Q. Could you record temperature in a person without recording pulse in the human body?
A. Of course, one can do that.
Q. It is most unusual, isn't it?
A. Well, I must not have noticed it at the time. I must have overlooked it.
Q. Can you determine from the black book whether or not his pulse rate was taken? Does the black book contain that information?
A. No.
Q. Now, on the reverse side of Graph B25 we see pencil notations. Is that your handwriting?
A. No.
Q. Is that legible so you could read it to us?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you read it very slowly so the interpreters can follow? I imagine there may be some medical terms that may confuse.
A. "On the 2nd of September some pains in the area of the stomach. Otherwise, subjectively no complaints. Temperature up to 38 degrees centigrade. Bronchitis above the bases of the lung.
"3rd of September, left basel on both sides above the lung; a shortening of the sounds at the lung itself." I cannot read the next word.
Q. Read whatever you can. If you find a word in the sentence that is not legible so that the sentence will not convey the meaning, then don't bother to read that sentence.
A. I can't decipher this word. "Bronchitis, individual rasping sounds which don't reverberate, O.B. After administration of pyramidon the fever sank immediately."
"4th of September, on both sides increased healing. Both points in shadows. When there is a coughing spell they almost do not lighten up.
"12th of September, subjectively the same complaints of stomach pains as before the beginning of the experiment."
Q. Will you stop for a moment there, doctor? You state there are stomach complaints as before the beginning of the experiment, Now, if a man complained of some ailment, why did you use him in your experiment if he complained of some stomach ailment? I would have thought that you would have eliminated people with complaints.
A. Yes, probably he had some gastritic complaints which certainly were not extensive and this note says during the final examination that due to the experiment there were no changes in the complaints.
"Condition of nourishment not satisfactory. Paleness of the skin. Turgor reduced. Musculature still excessively excitable. Heart O.B. , not enlarged."
Q. Well, now, is there a term there that says "nomo-phlebitis." spelled n o m o - p h l e b i t i s ?
A. Yes. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. Probably, it was supposed to mean thrombophlebitis.
Q. What does that mean?
Q: What does that mean?
A: That is an inflammation of the veins.
Q: Then it goes on to say "Nutritional state, non specific"; what do you mean by that?
A: It apparently means satisfactorily.
Q: Then it A: (Interposing) This patient when he was discharged, I believe, weighed 56 kilograms; thus, he had,not yet regained his original weight.
Q: Then, the further statement in those notes says, "Palor of skin, Turgor decreased". Was this men pretty well dehydrated?
A: Turgor reduced, it says -- Turgor reduced; thus he had not yet been fed enough.
Q: Well, now on the 12th of September, does it state that the Musculator was still very strongly over-excitable.
A: It does not say, "very strongly" but "strongly".
Q: Strongly over-excitable?
A: Yes. That is something that he retained from the experiments.
Q: Well, is that a condition which would require that the subject be given same attention, medical attention?
A: Yes.
Q: And you left Dachau on the 15th?
A: Yes, that is why I required that the experimental subjects still be kept under medical attention. It was my request that they should again be examined.
Q: Then you turned these subjects over to the tender mercy of the SS physicians in the camp hospital?
A: Yes, the care and in the camp hospital for the prisoners was not done by the SS physicians, but by the prisoner's physicians.
Q: I wish to take up now case No. 36, your Honor. This case we have only two sets; one will be marked "A" and the other "B".
Dr. Beiglboeck, were there other charts made out on this subject or are these the only two charts?
A: The experimental subject is from the Second experimental group. In the case of the second experimental group, as you have probably seen, all the charts start only on the 30th of August.
Q: Well, now, this man's name is clearly legible, isn't it; that is, Savier Reinhard?
A: Yes.
Q: 21 years of age, and his number was, 91149. Now, these experiments here indicate he took 500 cc's of sea water every day for a total of six days; is that correct? -- five days?
A: Actually only four days.
Q: Do you think that this subject was faithful in the experiments in as much as the intake on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th of September is indicated on the chart A-36, the urinary output exceeds to a great proportion of sea water intake. Apparently this subject was faithful in drinking the sea water; was he not?
A: Yes.
Q: Did this man give you any trouble in as much as his temperature is about normal a considerable part of the time?
A: Yes. I also regarded that as table salt fever. He was 21 years old, and young people have -- but, now I saw that he had a Angina before. He had already lost his temperature when the experiment was started. And during the drinking he again got a rise in temperature and, therefore -
Q: (Interposing) Well, it seems rather strange to me that on the 30th day of September this man had a temperature above normal; yet you used him in the experiment?
A: Yes, because on the next day his temperature went down. It was a very slight inflammation of his throat, and it had disappeared; and therefore, at the beginning of the experiment he did not have any temperature.