That concluded the immunization. The third, the additional vaccination, served the purpose to prove the immunity which was caused by the protective vaccinations and I had no misgivings to use the word "infect" instead of "vaccinate." We find that also in medical literature, that both words are used to express the same and I already set forth that any vaccination with a live virus an infection perse.
Q Well, would I be living a proper example if I say that really what you meant was like vaccinating a man with a small pox vaccine and then, say two months later, giving him another small pox vaccine which doesn't take and you therefore conclude that he has been immunized against small pox? Is that right?
A That question, Mr. Prosecutor--may I formulate it slightly different so that I should be in position to answer it? In the case of this research we are concerned with the serological reaction, not a physical reaction. That is to say, I vaccinate with small pox, then a certain degree of immunity is achieved, and the second vaccination does not take. That is what you meant, isn't it? Well, it is not really right to compare this, to put this to the same level scientifically. Basically, what you mean and want I mean is the same. The only thing is that what mention-one is the physiological proof and the other one is the seroligical proof. I hope I have expressed mysolf clearly enough.
Q And why did you not carried out that type of test in connection with tho murine vaccine?
A That had its reasons essentially in the fact that only in the course of serological studies after that time I conceived the idea to use these research letters in order to establish the anti-infectious effect of the vaccinations. We have frequently found out that during the illness already before the end of the convalescent period a reduction of the tita values in the serum can be found and since I have conducted similar research with small pox I intended to extent that study also to typhus.
Q Now, you testified that in May 1943 you vaccinated 28 persons in Schirmeck.
8 with five-tenths of a cubic centimeter of the vaccine, 10 with five-tenths of a cubic centimeter of the vaccine, and 10 with a dead vaccine plus five-tenths of a cubic centimeter of the murine vaccine. Is that right?
A If I understood you correctly, 0,5 cubic centimeters? That is cor rect, that is right.
Q That should be one-half cubic centimeter.
A One-half? Well, that is five-tenths. Yes that is right.
Q A total of 28. Did you vaccinate any more in Schirmeck at any time?
A No, no, no, only with the dead virus -- three persons.
Q Three additional persons with a dead vaccine?
A Yes, with a dead vaccine.
Q How many trips did you make to Schirmeck with these vaccinations?
AAccording to my recollection there were four trips.
Q Four trips?
A Yes, I think so--yes.
Q There were no serious reactions to this vaccine?
A No, no serious reactions.
Q Thy is it that you transferred your activities to Natzweiler?
A That had it's reason in the location with regard to epidemics. Schirmeck, as I said already, was a camp for security detention and there the type of people was quite different from those at Natzweiler. Therefore the conditions with regard to hygiene and immunology were such that Schirmeck seemed to be loss endangered than Natzweiler as far as any epidemic was concerned.
Q And then through whom did you arrange this transfer of your activities?
A That I did on my own, from my own knowledge of the locations.
Q Isn't it a fact that you didn't carry out after infectious experiments with your murine vaccine because you had to obtain prisoners furnished by the SS and they would not permit you to carry out your expe riments on these 28 persons you vaccinated?
A No, no under no circumstances, because there were no experiments in the manner in which they are interpreted in this trial for that purpose. That was for the purpose of protecting these people.
Q Isn't the reason you went to Hirt because you had to have experimental subjects on whom you could carry out your planned afterinfection experiments to test the vaccine?
A In the first place I did not originally turn to Hirt because the camp commander negotiated with me without Hirt's knowledge. I would have carried out this vaccination within the scope of the general vaccination program were it not for the fact that Hirt had intervened at the time, and the result of this interference is the points which you can find in the documents, among the documents.
Q For what reason did Hirt interfer?
A Specific reasons I could not tell. I do not know, but Hirt believe - and I have told the camp physician and the camp commander that I could not obtain sufficient amounts of the customary vaccine, the commercial vaccine -- there was not enough of that in Strassbourg, and that I would start to vaccinate with the new vaccine which was manufactured in my place. And, Hirt heard about that and thought probably that this was a new thing which required approval of the superior officer and he told me then that it was probably better if I ask the approval, and as known from the documents, obtained that approval.
Q When was the last time you were in Shirmeck?
A I could not say; I could not tell you the accurate date. The last time when I performed a vaccination there was at the time when the influenza vaccinations were made -- must have been in 1943, the late fall of 1943.
Q And, as an expert, you testify to the Tribunal that vaccinating these 28 persons with the murine vaccine was a real contribution to fighting to possibility of a typhus epidemic in Shirmeck; is that right?
A I did not say that in that form, did I; I don't think so.
Q I am at a loss to understand how you could feel that the vaccination of 28 people in Shirmeck, and 200, or I think you said 80 in Natzweiller, could have any effect whatever on the likelihood of a typhus epidemic. There was some 12,000 inmates in Natzweiller, was there not, Professor?
A There were a great many, but I explained yesterday already that first I had to slowly because the laboratory means at my disposal I could not manufacture a sufficient amount of vaccine.
I regretted that very much, of course, and for that reason my work took very long.
Q What was the nationality of these 100 inmates that were shipped from Auschwitz?
A The nationalities, I could not tell you; later I was informed that they were Gypsies.
Q Do you not know the general appearance of a Gypsy? Is he dark in color or do you not think you would recognize one if you saw a Gypsy?
A Yes, but not all Gypsies look alike. If it is the real, the typical Gypsy, then one could say that, but I have to say that I am not enough of an Anthropologist, and if I am confronted with 80 or 100 people, it is not so easy to tell whether they are all Gypsies, Poles, Slavssand so forth, Hungarians, or Italians, which were amongst them, or other dark haired types. I could not make that distinction.
Q Did you personally examine these 100 inmates shipped in for your vaccinations? The first 100 in November or the first of December, 1943?
A Well I looked at the first subjects that were sent to me, and one could already see that they were in such a bad condition that vaccinations regardless of what kind, could not be applied anymore?
Q And, 18 of them died on the transport; is that right?
A That was what I was told.
Q That is rather so or did isn't it?
A Yes, indeed, and I also made no secret of my opinion of that when I spoke to Hirt.
Q You knew that these 100 men had been shipped in on your request, didn't you?
A No, I did not know that before, because I was of the opinion that they were or would be inmates who were already in the camp. The background conditions -- for instances, that people had been brought from Auschwitz to Natzweiler for this purpose I did not know.
Q But, you knew it after it happened, didn't you?
AAfter it happened, after I heard about it, I knew it, yes.
Q And, you requested another 100 and they were also shipped in weren't they?
A That I could not tell you whether they were shipped or whether they were inmates who were already in the camp. I have no knowledge of that. I could not tell you.
Q You knew that in the first case, but you don't know in the second case; is that right?
A No, I don't know it.
Q Well, this second 100 you examined them, didn't you?
A I looked at them, yes. I examined them together with the prison physicians, and we found out that they could be vaccinated.
Q Some of them were Gypsies, were they not?
AAccording to my recollection they were of many different nationalities; not only Gypsies, no, no.
Q. Some of them were Poles?
A Well, today it is hard for me to tell in detail what nationality they belonged to; it is quite impossible now.
Q Witnesses from Strassbourg testified here that you tended to justify your work in the camp by saying that no Alsatians were used, only Poles, but I want to know whether you remember if there were some Poles among the persons you were going to vaccinate?
This must be a mistake. You mean Schirmeck; don't you? The questions was discussed in connection with the inmates vaccinated in Schirmeck, not in Natzweiller.
Well, you may he correct. Were any Poles in Schirmeck?
A There were. Not all of them were Poles, at any rate. I noticed -I could speak, I conversed with some of them. At any rate, they belonged to different nationalities, they were not all Poles.
Q Did you make the remark attributed to you by several of the witnesses here?
A No, I did not make it, no.
Q It strikes me that you were a bit persistent with your vaccinations when you ordered hundred men after the first 100 turned out to be in bad shape. Was there any reason why you could not tell the camp commander. "Let us use 100 men right here; right here in the camp now. All I want to do is vaccinate them to protect them from typhus.
Why do we need 100 men shipped from Auschitz?" Did you say anything like that?
A No, I did not do that; and, I told you already that I did not know about the transport from Auschwitz before it had arrived, and even if there had been new arrivals from Auschwitz, as far as I know they were large transports coming in all the time from Auschwitz and from other camps, and they again were camp inmates, and just as vulnerable as the others in the camp.
Q You testified yesterday that the persons working in your laboratory were vaccinated against typhus and you mentioned some danger in connection with the laboratory work. Will you tell the Tribunal what that danger was?
A Well, when working with typhus, there is always the possibility of an infection brought about in the laboratory, and one has to talk all precautionary measures to make sure that such an infection does not take place.
Q Did you pay your laboratory assistants a risk bonus?
A Yes, two assistants, employees of the laboratory who were particularly endangered were paid a bonus.
Q I thought you also testified on two or three occasions that you had no virus strains which were pathogenic to human beings; is that right?
A That is right.
Q And, what was the danger which arose to the laboratory workers?
A Well, that is from the fact that sometimes we do not know everything about the biological matter. Sometimes a strain might become pathogenic for human beings, that is not excluded.
In every laboratory one can make that observation once in a while. With all virus whereever they may be kept they may be kept and whereever they may appear it is quite understood that all precautions have to be taken, precautionary measure have to be taken.
Q But, you relied very heavily upon the fact that you had no pathogenic strains and you set that up as a big defense against the possibility that you carried out after-infection experiments with a virulent virus and you pooh-poohed the possibility that there was any danger to the test persons, and I am having some difficulty reconciling the great danger to the laboratory assistants, but no danger to persons who where subject to the vaccinations?
A I believe one cannot interpret this in that manner because sometimes even in the laboratory we are confronted with matters which we cannot quite control. Therefore, it is always better to be careful if one handles material of that kind, than to be negligent.
Q But you excluded the possibility that any of your test persons could have been harmed in the slightest way by these vaccinations?
A In the preliminary experiments we could find that out and that is already the best test if that can be found, out, whether there is a danger apparent or not.
Q Then you took the guinea pigs to Natzweiler to permit the inmates to breed, them, is that right?
A That is correct and there was the chief of the hospital who was very much interested in animal breeding and I brought him mice, as well as guinea pigs, so that he could, start his animal breeding.
Q You were short of rabbits and mice but not of guinea pigs, is that right?
A Yes, guinea pibs we would have needed, considerably and we hoped to get more.
Q Professor, you testified yesterday and I quote the translation: "When I say "subsequent infection" I am referring to subsequent vaccination with living virus vaccine, the third vaccination which I carried out in this group." Wasn't there any word which you could have used instead of "subsequent infection" to convey somewhat more clearly what you meant to do?
A I said yesterday already that the word "subsequent infection" which was used, but that it had nothing to do with the vaccination for the purpose of protection, but that a third vaccination was made in order to examine the degree of immunity or the fact of immunity and to make that distinction between these two actions I speak first of the real vaccination for the purpose of protection and I call the next vaccination the "subsequent infection."
Q And you think that the use of the word "subsequent infection" is better than, for example, than "Nachimpfung"?
A Yes, one could use the word "Nachimpfung" I believe since the same material is used. There is no basic difference and in medical literature the word "infection" or "re-infection" is also used in the sense of "Nachimpfung", subsequent infection. One does not have to consider that infection means something at any rate dangerous.
Q When you use in conjunction with the word vaccination or immunization the word "subsequent infection" which has something of a bit of color in it, doesn't it, Professor?
A No, I don't think one could say that.
Q Well you concede that the Prosecution's interpretation of the word "subsequent infection" as meaning infection with a virulent typhus virus of the type carried out in Buchenwald is equally consistent with the interpretation you put on it?
A If one interprets it that way, one has to consider what material was used for that subsequent infection. As far as I am informed now in Buchenwald and also in other places, an infection was carried out by human passage, that is with the blood of diseased persons, which is highly infectious, and with that blood human beings were infected. That is of course an entirely different matter than to take an attenuated virus and vaccinate with it.
Q You have to start with a fully virulent virus though, don't you, before you wind up with an attenuated virus, don't you, Professor?
A That is correct.
Q But you never had any such fully virulent virus, is that right?
A I had a virus strain which had been bred for a long time on the lungs of a rabbit but by Professor Giraud in Paris and which we continued to breed in a plant, and doubtlessly that was already an attenuated strain.
Q We can, of course, find out, I thank, rather easily what the serums of this strain you obtained from the Pasteur Institute was. Let me put this question to you. Do you think it would have been safe to have taken some of the blood from some of the guinea pigs carrying this strain when you first received it and inject it into a person?
A I don't quite understand time question. May I ask you to be kind enough to repeat it?
Q Suppose you had injected a human being with the strain which you received fron Giraud would it have resulted in a serious typhus illness or not?
A That again is a question, Mr. Prosecutor, which is of a more hypothetical nature, I think the great probability is that it would have come to a mild infection but I could not say with a hundred per cent certainty, but the experiences which we have gained indicate that it would have been only a mild case. That is a hypothetical question again which I can only answer in a hypothetical way.
Q Well pursuing the hypothetical question further, you insist on testifying to this Tribunal that you could not have possibly brought on a serious case of typhus illness if you had tried to do so, is that right?
A That is correct, because I had tried out that material already in experiments on ourselves and the quality of being apathogenic to humans was proved by that.
Q Do you remember document No. 127, that is your letter to Hirt of 27 June 1944, asking for an additional 200 persons, that is Prosecution Exhibit 306?
A Page 96, to Professor Hirt.
Q Now you had already carried out your experiments in December and January, 1943 and 1944, respectively, on 80 persons, is that right?
A Yes.
Q Now in June again you asked for an additional 200 and you stated, however, in the subsequent innoculations with virulent typhus which are to be made for the purpose of testing the protective vaccine, one must count on sickness, particularly in the control group which has not received the protective vaccine.
Why were you pursuing these tests? You have explained that as being nothing more than a subsequent vaccination. You carried out such experiments on the 80 persons in the winter of '43 - '44. Why did you want another 200 to carry out the same experiments?
A This is no longer an experiment as it is usually understood here in this court room, but a series of vaccinations with a vaccine that is already known. That I requested another certain number of people to be vaccinated is explained by the fact that my possibility for production were limited, but here in this case we believed that we would be able to manufacture sufficient vaccine for 200 persons.
Q Well, but you draw the distinction in this letter between the experiments you had carried out so far and the one which you proposed in this letter, yet I put it to you that according to your own testimony here now your plans were no different at all. You simply say that again, you were going to carry out subsequent vaccinations not subsequent infections. You had already done that on this first hundred, the first eighty experimental persons. What was the reason for doing it again, Professor?
A I stated already that my intention was if possible to vaccinate the entire camp for their protection, but at first I could only take 200, but since here again I intended to make scientific observations concerning the compatibility of the vaccines, I made these two distinctions here, and the one group which again should be vaccinated on the arm by scarification, I designated as subjects of control innoculation, and I said also that I know that in other places work was done on typhus vaccines. Therefore, I mentioned again these control innoculations in order to make it clear. These are the only reasons.
Q. This is nothing then but a repetition of what you did on the 80 experimental subjects?
A. I explained that already yesterday, it was the same as the vaccinations I carried out in the winter of 1943-44.
Q. Now, did you actually carry out any vaccinations after the vaccinations in December and January on the 80 persons? Did you carry out any more vaccinations in Natzweiler?
A. No, I did not. There were no more vaccinations carried out.
Q. You didn't vaccinate anyone during the course of the epidemic? I should have thought that they would have been eager to let you vaccinate those people. Here they were crying for you to come in when there was no epidemic to keep an epidemic off and then they get an epidemic and you vaccinate nobody, how do you explain that?
A. No, these people were no longer vaccinated and I explained that already yesterday that in the summer I had to make so many official military trips that I could not carry this out anymore.
Q. Then you made no vaccinations on anyone in Natzweiler after January 1944, is that right?
A. There were no vaccinations carried on after these vaccinations in December 1943 and January 1944.
Q. How did they combat the epidemic?
A. The epidemic was combated by delousing all the inmates as possible and the request of the camp physicians I myself saw to it that they received the equipment to do that. I know that the capacity of the decontamination equipment was too limited so that due to the impossibility of a perfect delousing the epidemic was increased.
Then our institute extended that equipment and transferred it to Natzweiler. That increased the capacity to delouse inmates to twice the amount and that prevented many typhus cases.
Q. When had you completed this third vaccination in the series on the 40 test persons in December and January?
A. That must have been during the course of January, the precise date I can not tell you any longer.
Q. How far separated was one vaccination from the other?
A. Well, the two first vaccinations were made at an interval of approximately one week. The third one which was designated as subsequent infection four weeks after the last vaccination.
Q. And was this third vaccination any different from the first vaccination except that you applied it through scarification rather than injection?
A. There was no other difference except that, of course, the amount used for scarification was smaller than that used by injection.
Q. Did the persons get sick when you made the first injection in the series of three?
A. I don't quite understand that question. After the first injection of the series of three what injections?
Q. Did your experimental subjects get ill or sick after the first vaccination of the three which you gave the 40 test persons?
A. The test persons received only one single scarification on the arm. That was only the simple vaccination made by one scarification.
Q. I thought we had two groups, the group of 40 which received 3 vaccinations in a series, the first two being given by injection, the last one being a scarification vaccination and at the same time the 40 control persons were given a similar scarification vaccination, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. That's all I wanted to know. Now then, when you gave the first vaccination to the 40 persons, disregarding the control persons now, did they get sick?
A. They got the normal reactions of a vaccination but they didn't get typhus.
Q. Well, why do you draw a distinction in your letter of 27 June that one must count on sickness in the control group. The control group in this case got nothing more than the other group - so why draw the distinction between sickness in the control group as compared with the immunized persons? You didn't give this group anything more serious that you gave the other group you vaccinated, indeed you gave them something much less serious, as compared, with the three times. Now, why was there sickness in the control group after one scarification vaccination?
A. This morning I have already explained that that letter was read by laymen and probably decided upon by laymen, and here in mentioning the normal reactions to be expected after the vaccination I spoke of sickness but it would be quite erroneous to assume that I meant typhus. As I have said already this morning I just referred to the normal reaction after vaccination.
Q. Then the control group didn't get any more severe reaction than the ones that were not controlled, did they doctor?
A. The reactions as far as I can still recall them were no more serious then with those who had previously been vaccinated by injection. In other words, no signs of a manifest typhus disease.
Q. So you really were saying something that was utter nonsense when you talked about sickness in the control group? Weren't you?
A. How was that, please?
Q. I say, your talk of sickness in the control group is just nonsense then, because there can be no distinction here between your control group here and your other group?
A. If I understand you correctly, Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know if I understood that question correctly. There were in the first group reactions to the vaccination among the first 40 that had been vaccinated and such reactions of vaccination we also had in the second group of 40 that were vaccinated, but we had no cases of typhus.
Q. I am agreeing with your proposition, Professor, that you didn't subsequently infect anybody even though you say so. But, I can't for the life of me understand how you can speak of a control group in this letter and speak of expecting illness in the control group when the control group didn't get any thing more than a, vaccination. The other group got a similar vaccination and two others, yet you are indicating to, Mr. Hirt, that we can expect some illness in the control group. That's nonsense, isn't it?
A. Up that is not nonsense. I have explained yesterday already what the purpose of that control group was. That was with reference to serological reaction which we wanted to examine in connection with those who had been vaccinated various times. I said already this morning that already after the vaccination the agglutination tita in the serum were reduced and we wanted to put these two groups into relation to each other as far as these values were concerned. And this group which was vaccinated by scarification was a comparative group in the sense of a control test for the serological reaction.
And, if I mention cases of sickness in this letter then I meant the normal effects of the vaccination.
Q. Professor, we are having great difficulty getting on the same ground. Let me put one final question to you. Was there any reason to expect any more serious reaction to the vaccination in the control group as compared with the other group?
A. No.
Q. So, there was no reason whatever for you drawing Hirt's attention to the possibility of sickness in the control group? Isn't that the point, Professor? There is no point to it unless you really intend to infect the control group with a virulent virus as you stated?
A. No. I beg your pardon, Mr. Prosecutor. I have already told you that this sickness was effects of the vaccination, normal reactions of the vaccination end I had heard from Lolling, chief physician of the camp, specifically that it was not desired that people were lost for work. Therefore, I covered myself and said it is possible however that such reactions of the vaccination will occur and if I have to repeat again I used the word sickness in this document in order to express that reactions of the vaccination will have to be expected. I am sorry but I have no other explanation than this.
Q. Let me put a document to you before we adjourn. Do you read French? Professor?
A. Yes a little, but I do not speak it fluently but I know it sufficiently.
Q I am putting to the witness Document NO 807; Prosecution Exhibit 185. Professor; do you see the point at which I have made pencil marks on the photostatic copy of the document?
A 25th of January; 1943?
Q One minute; Professor.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I only ask, Mr. President, where the document is that was put to the witness. I should like to read it also and be able to compare it. Mr. Hardy told me the document book and did not give me the page of the document. I should like to know where the document is located unless it is a new one.
MR. McHANEY: It is an old one. It can be found in the skeleton collection document book. Document Bock # 7. It is on page 23 of the English document book, Document NO 807, Prosecution Exhibit 185. This is primarily book of pictures concerning Hirt's skeleton collection; but there are also in this document extracts taken from original German records found in the Natzweiler concentration camp concerning, as the prosecution says, Haagen's typhus experiments, and I am now asking him to read three excerpts which appear in this document.
DR. TIPP: I don't believe, Mr. President, that there is a French document in our document book. Mr. Haagen said that his French was not fluent and that he only knew French, and I think it is very dangerous to submit to a witness a document in language in which he is not quite fluent. Mr. HcHaney is no doubt in a position to submit that document in German and I should like to ask him to do so.
MR. McHANEY: I assume that defense counsel has the document in German. THE PRESIDENT: Evidently the document is not immediately available. Could you read that portion of the document which you refer to in English and have it translated into German?
BY MR. McHANEY:
Q Very easily and if the witness will follow either the English or the German he can tell us if it is correct.
The first extract that I wished him to read is taken from a report of the camp doctor of Natzweiler concentration camp, File. 14B8344. Then appears the initials "KR" obviously standing for Dr. Krieger whom the witness testified he know. Dated Natzweiler, 1 February 1944. It reads:
"Experiments at the Ahnenerbe - experimental st ticn arc still not under ary. One cf the 89 human experimental prisoners (Gypsums) died aith pleurae nyshyca..." I can't make th-t cut -- "... duran' one Period covered by the report. Forty Gypsies received nrophyl ti.c innocui-ti n for a typhus cxprinent."
Were you able to fellow that, Professor? That's the excerpt I checked -- 1 February 1944.
A. 1st February 1944 -- "experiments in the experimental station Ahnenerbe". Is that it?
Q That's it. That's where you were working isn't it, Professor?
A I did not work in the Ahnenerbe.
Q Did you know where the Ahnenerbe station was in Natzweiler?
A. In Natzweiler I cannot remember having seen the special designation Ahnenerbe when I worked there.
Q Then you can't testify you didn't a work in the Ahnenerbe, can you, Professor? Have you found this excerpt?
A Yes, yes, I have it here.
"Experiments in the experimental station Ahnenerbe have not yet started. Of the 80..." That is very difficult to read here. "Of the 80 experimental subjects, inmates, Gypsies, one died from ploura caupiaenina in the meantime. 40 Gypsies were vaccinated for the purpose of a typhus experiment."
Q If the Tribunal wishes to adjourn, we will continue with this document tomorrow. I'll ask that the witness pass it back.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will return the document.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 20 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 19 June 1947. 0930-0945, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain that the defendants are all present in Court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, 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.
I was under the impression that counsel for Defendant Hoven had requested that he be excused from attendance today. I don't know whether he desires to be excused or not. The court gave him permission to be absent to consult with his counsel. I don't see his counsel present but when he comes, ho may state his wishes in the matter.
Counsel may proceed.
MR. MCHANEY: May it please the Tribunal, Professor, at the end of the session yesterday, I put to you certain excerpts appearing in Document NO-807; which was Prosecution Exhibit No. 185.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I already said yesterday that we do not know about this Document that Mr. HcHaney is about to put in. I brought No. 9 with me and I ascertain that Document NO-807, as put in by the Defense, is not the same document as Mr. McHaney is putting to the witness. In our Document Book, Document NO-807 is on page 18, that corresponds to the page number in the document book. This Document NO-807 is simply an interrogation of Hauptsturmfuehrer Kramer before a military court in Strassbourg on 27 July, 1945.