Is that your explanation of that?
A No. First I want to read this sentence.
Q Infektions versuche.
A I said yesterday that after the vaccinations proper were finished we performed further vaccinations to determine immunity and that we called that infection and that it was frequently done in works by other people.
Q.- Yes, your three times vaccination was really what you meant by infection experiments.
Now, I put it to you, hadn't you already used this three times vaccin ation procedure in Schirmeck, Professor? See, you make mention of three times vaccination in this letter?
A.- Let me see where that is. Where is that?
Q.- It is in the same paragraph where we have been reading:
"The serum titer is considerably higher also after a single vaccination" also indicating that you carried out other vaccinations. Then you continue: "In comparison with three times vaccinations with deactivated vaccines."
A.- This "in comparison with", where does it say that? I can't find that.
Q.- Do you find the part that we just read:
"I already reported to you the numeral results of experiments on human beings. The Serum titer is considerably higher, also after a single vaccination, in comparison with 3 times vaccinations with de-activated vaccines"?
A.- We have the experience that three times vaccination with a dead vaccine produces a very low serum titer, and that's what this "comparison" referred to, not any special experiment, but experience in general.
Q.- No three times vaccination with your live vaccine? Is that right, Professor?
A.- That's right. We're talking about a dead vaccine here.
Q.- Now, you said that you didn't carry out any vaccinations in Schirmeck after May, 1943. You find in this same paragraph we have been reading the sentence:
"We are now performing a further vaccination of human beings..."
Where was that done, Professor? Wasn't that in Schirmeck?
A.- It goes on -- Oh, I see it now. But this vaccination was never carried out. It doesn't say "we did perform".
Q.- No, it doesn't say "we did perform", it says "we are now performing" is what it says, doesn't it, Professor?
A.- That means it hasn't been done yet. I could have said "we will perform" too.
Q.- Yes, you could have, but you said "we are now performing" and I take that to mean in the process of performing.
A.- Yes, but the fact is that these vaccinations weren't performed and this expression has to be interpreted to mean that we were going to perform. That refers to the 200 persons whom I had asked for.
Q.- Oh, it does? Well, we'll see about that.
You still want to maintain that you didn't perform any vaccinations in Schirmeck after May, 1943, do you, Professor?
A.- Yes, I maintain that.
Q.- And you also maintain that although you used the words "performing infection experiments on vaccinated persons" in this letter that you really didn't mean that, that you meant another vaccination? Is that right?
A.- That as the third vaccination that I talked about. I have already told you that all this work was with a non-pathogenic virus and it was to be continued.
Q.- And you were prepared to recommend this vaccine for the time being without infectious experiments? All you meant to say by that was that you were prepared to recommend it even though you hadn't conducted your triple vaccination series?
A.- Then we had so much experience - I can see, looking back on it now - that we could introduce the vaccine on a large scale.
Q.- Isn't it a fact, Professor, that you had conducted your vaccination tests and your compatibility tests and the SS wouldn't let you infect those persons in Schirmeck and you had to get special persons through Hirt? Isn't that the fact, Professor?
A.- It's identical. The request that I made at the time went through Hirt.
That was the same office which later gave me the prisoners for vaccination, or intended to give me the prisoners for vaccination.
Q.- Let's drop down to the last few sentences of the letter, Doctor. Do you see where it reads:
"If we can get experimental subjects from the SS for test vaccinations, it would be an opportunity to test the liver vaccine as well on its anti-infectious effect. I would then suggest that our material will be used parallel with the Ipsen tests."
Do you find that, Professor? I thought you had.....
A.- (Interrupting) Just a minute. I have only two pages here. I have to find it.
Q.- It's at the bottom of the page. It's the last two sentences of the next to the last paragraph. Do you find that?
"If we can get experimental subjects from the SS for test vaccinations, it would be an opportunity to test the liver vaccine as well on its anti-infectious effect. I would then suggest that our material be used parallel with the Ipsen tests." Do you find that, Professor?
A.- Yes, I found that.
Q.- I thought you testified to the Tribunal that you never said anything to Rose about testing his Ipsen vaccine for its efficiency? Isn't that right? Didn't you tell that to the Tribunal?
A.- I testified here that if we were to use the Ipsen vaccine it would not be in a planned group since otherwise the figures for comparison would be too small. That we would need a special series of persons.
Q.- You testified that you did not suggest anything to Rose about testing his Ipsen vaccine as to its anti-infectious effect. You told that to the Tribunal at least twice under a very precise question put by me. Don't you state in this letter that you will conduct such tests for its anti-infectious properties?
A.- I believe that I said that I didn't remember. Perhaps we could make certain of that.
I can't remember. I told you that I don't remember this letter.
Q.- Nell, it's all in the record, exactly what you said and we needn't worry about that now, but you concede that in this letter you are telling Rose you will test his Ipsen vaccine for its anti-infectious effect, aren't you?
A.- Yes, but I.....
DR. TIPP (Interrupting): Mr. President, apparently Mr. McHaney wants to refer to Document HO-122, the letter of Professor Rose. At least, that is how I understood him, and to avoid mistakes I should like to point out the following. In this document, NO-122, there is a reference to a letter from Mr. Haagen dated the 8th of December, 1943, and in the direct examination Mr. Haagen testified on this letter of the 8th of December. This letter which Mr. McHaney has just stated is dated the 4th of October, 1943, and entirely different letter.
Mr. McHANEY: I think that the observations by defense counsel are in the way of some sort of protection for his witness. Now, he has put the witness on the stand and the witness can take care of himself. He can direct any question on the clarification of this matter on redirect examination, and I must object this interrupting this examination unless he has an objection to offer.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled.
BY Mr. McHANEY:
Q.- Now, Herr Professor, let's test your testimony a little bit more I want to put a further document to you.
This is Document NO-3852.
Doctor, take it you recognize that exhibit I put to you. Suppose you tell the Tribunal what it is?
A.- First I should like to look at the document carefully.
Q.- Have you read far enough to tell us what this exhibit is, Professor?
A.- I need a little time. The document is rather long. I'd like to study it.
Q.- Professor, I don't want you to study the document. I'll put specific questions to you and we will go over it together, but right now I want you to tell the Tribunal what this little note book is. Will you please tell them?
"A.- As far as I can see at the moment, these are records, but they are rather extensive. After such a long time, I should like a chance to study them.
Q.- Professor, aren't those your notes? Your recognize your own handwriting, don't you?
A.- No, this is not my handwriting.
Q.- Is it Miss Crodell's handwriting?
A.- I have to have samples of handwriting, but it wight be that she wrote it, but first I'd have to see it carefully to know the contents.
Q.- Oh, come now, Professor, I think you must recognize this. I'll give you an opportunity to study each little section of it as we come to it, but right now we have to tell the Tribunal what it is.
A.- The first document is a fever chart of a mouse, 540-541. That's the first thing I have here.
Q.- Yes, that is a chart showing a vaccination carried out on two mice, isn't it, Professor?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And those were experiments carried out by you, weren't they?
THE PRESIDENT: You say, counsel, that is the beginning of this document?
BY Mr. McHANEY:
Q.- Yes, Your Honor, we will necessarily have some difficulty with this exhibit. We have not had it very long and again, through some ridiculous oversight, they did not translate the full document. There are, I think, two charts attached to this note book which cannot be copied. In any event, I don't intend to direct many questions in connection with those and I believe we will be able to proceed in an orderly fashion.
THE PRESIDENT: See that complete copies are furnished as soon as possible to defense counsel and the Tribunal.
BY Mr. McHANEY:
Q.- What about the note book, Professor?
A.- It is a record of our mice. As far as I can see now, the vaccine was tested, on these mice. The immunizing effect of the vaccine.
Q.- Now, you are speaking of the chart now, are you?
A.- Yes, this curve here.
Q.- That is marked in pencil. Does that have a pencil mark on the lower right hand corner?
A. Subsequently vaccinated, with yolk-sacks, is that what you mean?
Q. We will proceed. That is a vaccine test carried out by you on nice, is it not?
A. Yes, yes, of course.
Q. And the date is 3 December 1943?
A. 3 December, '43, yes.
Q. And you list the test you are carrying our as "nach-iupfung", doesn't that appear in the chart?
A. The nice, yes.
Q. You didn't say "nach-infection" in that case you said "nach -inpfung", didn't you, and when you were speaking about human beings you used the word "nack-infection" as "nach-inpfung", didn't you?
A. That is exactly the sane thing in this sense. The assistant made this entry, and I an quite certain that is right.
Q. Except when your assistant was referring to mouse test, "nach impfung" and not "nach-infcction". Suppose you tell the Tribunal what happened to those two nice. Did they die?
A. Well, I have to see.
Q. What do you have to see? There are two big crosses on the chart there.
A. Yes, but one cross is in the middle of the curve, and they couldn't have died in the middle of the curve. And the curve went on. That doesn't work. One can't say it died if the temperature is taken afterwards.
Q. Can you tell from the chart whether the mice died?
A No, I can't say.
Q. All right. Let's pass on to this notebook.
A. From this chart, no, no.
Q. Let's pass onto the notebook. Now, what does the notebook show? What is this notebook?
A. That is a control book, a book where the experiments with the typhus vaccine on the animals were recorded.
Q. Does that notebook concern your typhus experiments?
A. As far as I can see now, it looks as if that was the current laboratory work which we were carrying out. That is the way it looks like, but I'd have to see all of it first.
Q. Now, Professor, you must be able to tell the Tribunal who wrote this book.
A. The technical assistant kept it, and from the handwriting, it looks as if she made these entries; but after such a long time, I can't interpret every record. I have to study it first after such a long time. We had not only vaccinations, but also scientific work.
Q. But to the best of your memory, you can state that this notebook was written by Miss Crodell, and it concerns the experiments carried out by you?
A. The laboratory work, as far as I can see at the moment. I would like to make that restriction.
MR. HcHANEY: The prosecution asks that the exhibit be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 521 for identification.
BY MR. MCHANEY:
Q. Now, Professor, we have covered the chart of the test on the two nice. Let's go to the notebook itself. And in order to follow my questions, I will ask you to observe the pencil numbers which I have written on this photostatic copy down at the bottom right-hand corner of each page. Do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you turn to page 3.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal, please, it will be necessary to renumber the pages appearing on your translations. This applies equaly to the defense counsel. When the translation was made, they took some pages off the reverse side of the photostatic copy, and because of the two pages appearing for one photostatic copy, they had to be renumbered.
Page 5 on the translations should be markdd page 3.
BY MR. MCHANEY:
Q. Do you find the entry for 30 April 1943, Professor?
A. 30 April '43, yes.
Q. And that says, "S, plus, plus, plus, 9, S ch." That is Schirmeck, isn't it, Professor? "S ch."?
A. No. That means ninth passage. It is supposed to be "pas.", ninth passage.
Q. It says "Sch.", what does "Sch." mean?
A. It doesn't look like "Sch."to me.
Q. What does it look like to you?
A. In German, I think it looks like a "p", a German "p".
Q. And you think it should read, what?
A. First I said it is probably "passage-ninth passage."
Q. All right. Let's go down to the entry, the nex one for 14 May. In parenthesis "two weeks," does that mean the vaccine had been stored for two weeks?
A. Where is that, I can't find it?
Q. 14 May, immediately-
A. It probably means that it was stored for two weeks, yes.
Q. And then you go on, and it reads, "1 plus two point two for six mice, point five, I. P. All injected again, six point six immune, on the two out of four of the controlled died," right?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. Then, the next is 26 May, "four weeks, three dash six," what does "three dash six" mean, Professor?
A. Four weeks, three to six," I can't tell you at the moment. I'd have to reconstruct what the assistant wrote.
Q. Well, passing that for the moment. It continues to read, "point 5 per person and six mice point five I.P., five dead after ten, fourteen, fourteen days.
The rest after four weeks." What does "the rest" refer, to the one mouse? Does that refer to these unidentified persons?
A. No, that refers to the mice. It was simply a mouse experiment. It says "five dead". They have to have all the information on the mice. This is a brief entry.
Q. But this is May, 1943, when you were vaccinating people in Schirmeck, and this entry says "three dash six, point five per persons." Now, you are not suggesting to the Tribunal, that the "persons" are referring to the mice? It continues to say-
A. But then it says "six mice" with "point five", that was the scrum, I suppose, that we were testing, the immunizing effect on mice. I can't interpret it differently at the moment. "Four weeks", that means the faccine had been stored for four weeks. "Point five per persons" were vaccinated. That might mean that was a comparison experiment, that the effectiveness was to be tested on mice. At the moment, I can't give any exact interpretation. I'd have to study the document very carefully.
Q. What does this "per person" refer to? Talking about human beings, aren't they?
A. Yes. It is very, possible that that was the vaccine which we had injected into the persons in Schirmeck in May of '43; and then in parallel experiments, we tested it on mice. It was still pathogenic to mice. It was the murine typhus virus.
Q. But not pathogenic to human beings. It killed the mice, but you were sure it wouldn't kill any human beings, is that right?
A. Yes, the vaccination showed that.
Q. Let's see what it showed. Let's look at the entry for 6 July, and you will recal that this is right about the time that our witness, Hirz was testifying. 6 July, "drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons, 3 had fever, Weil-Felix," and then under number 1 to 8, indicating persons 1 to 8, you give the serum titer count, and then comes a little phrase, " The other two were not here anymore." Professor, what about these other two persons out of the ten?
You remember that the witness Hirz testified that he personally sewed two bodies up in a paper bag which were delivered to the crematorium after you had injected your vaccine. Doesn't this, "the other two are not here anymore", rather substantiate what the witness Hirz testified to?
A. No, I wouldn't say that. In my direct examination, I said that in checking these vaccinated persons, no one was missing. Whether later perhaps these serological, examinations were in May, two months ago,-whether some of the prisoners were gone in the meantime, I don't know. If anyone had died there would have been an entry somewhere in the record, I should think.
Q. Doesn't that entry say, doesn't it say "the two weren't here anymore"? Where were these serological examinations in May? I don't see that in your records. Does it show any serological examinations in May?
A. In the institute. And this is a later check on the immunity through the Weil-Felix experiments.
Q. We will proceed, Professor. Now you testified you did not conduct any vaccinations after May 1943 in Schirmeck and I must have given you an opportunity at least five times to make that perfectly clear. And even on the last document I put to you you still insist you did not make any. The next entry reads, "4 October 1943, six months, inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, tube plus 2 cc distilled water, 0.5 per person."
Do you want to change your testimony now, Professor.
A. First I have to read it carefully. There is a figure here, "six months". I have to interpret that "20 nersons inoculated in Schirmeck". Those are probably the 20 people that we vaccinated in May that the witness here mentioned. "Two cc distilled water, then 0.5 cc ner uerson." I do not know even today that in the fall of 1943 we carried out vaccinations in Schirmeck. Then there is an entry on the 27th of January, 1944, nine months.
Q. That is right. That gives you the length of time you had this vaccine stored, does it not, Professor? On 4 October 1943 you had it stored six months? You inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck on 4 October, did you not, as you stated in your letter to Rose, on the same date, the inoculations are now progressing, or words to that effect? You remember you said to Rose in a letter of 4 October 1943 which I put to you that was just a elan that you would do that. This entry indicates you did do it, does it not, Professor?
A. I must weigh what I said before. The letter was dated 27 January 1943, a time going much farther back.
Q. Yes, it is further back. It is obviously a mistake, Professor, as you well know. Sometimes people running from December over into January make a mistake and put the last year, you know, and that is obviously what happened in this case because he could not write a contemporaneous entry for January 1943 and then have it appear up above that entry, entries for October, July and May and April 1943, could he, Professor?
You will agree with me that that date should read 27 January 1944, when the vaccine had been stored nine months dating from 30 April 1943, is that not right, Professor?
A. I cannot remember that we vaccinated anybody in Schirmeck later; I am very sorry.
Q. You remember that you did not vaccinate anybody after May, Professor?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. On 27 January 1944, which is the next entry, "nine months, mixed with the same amount as 21 May distilled water plus tube, 20 persons 10 cc each." Those were in Schirmeck, too, were they not, Professor?
A. It says 1 cc, 1 point O cc. It does not say anything about Schirmeck. I cannot say. I must assure you once more that I actually know nothing about these vaccinations. I am very sorry.
Q. Let us proceed to page 4, Professor. It is apparently another series on Schirmeck. Do you find the entry on page 4? Your Honors should change page 6 to page 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Our pages are numbered 1 and 2. You are referring to the numbers on the original document?
MR. MC HANEY: Yes, Your Honor, page 6 on our translation, page 6 of the original should be changed to read page 4 of the original.
Q. Now, Professor, do you find an entry on page 4 before you, of 10 October, five months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck? Do you find that, Professor?
A. Yes.
Q. That indicates you inoculated some after 4 October 1943, vaccinations which you mentioned in your letter to Rose, and which are con firmed by this notebook.
And then, under the entry for 10 October you find 27 January 1944. Does it appear 1944 on the original?
A. 27 January 1944, yes.
Q. Eight months?
A. Eight months, yes.
Q. You speak of inoculating 20 persons there, do you not, Professor? Can you tell the Tribunal that those were done in Schirmeck?
A. I do not know that vaccinations were performed at Schirmeck at this time. We were only vaccinating in Natzweiler at this time, and I have not heard that such vaccinations were carried out. I am sorry.
Q. All right.
A. I am trying to interpret the document.
Q. Professor, let us go on to page 5. The Tribunal will change page 7 of the original to page 5 of the original. Do you find page 5, Professor?
A. Yes.
Q. This mentions another series of inoculations in Schirmeck, 13 July 1943, approximately seven weeks, Schirmeck, 0.5 cc per person and six mice before the inoculation.
Let us drop down lower on the page. Do you find the entry for 14 October. This is on the next page of the translation, Your Honor, 14 October.
Professor, do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. Ten persons inoculated for the third time with 1 cc. Professor, I thought you told us that you did not carry out multiple vaccinations with your murine vaccine in Schirmeck.
A. I have already testified that the only vaccinations in Schirmeck were in May 1943. I do not know from where this record came. In the fall of 1943 we were working only in Natzweiler. I am sorry, I cannot give any explanation.
Q. This entry, though, Professor, indicates an inoculation for the third time on a series of ten persons. That was your "Infektions Versuche", was it not, Professor?
A. No. I know nothing about it; I am sorry.
Q. But your series of three vaccinations were what you referred to as the "Infektions Versuche", was it not, Professor?
A. But these were vaccinations which were carried out in Natzweiler, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. The book says they were carried out in Schirmeck, and about four days before, on the 4th of October, 1943, you wrote to Rose and said, "We have to carry out infection experiments." Professor, is it possible that you really meant by "infection experiments" something other than your three-times vaccination which you had concluded on 14 October 1943?
A. Let me see exactly what it says here, page 5, 10 October-14 October, ten persons, three-times point five, it says again. It only says it is a vaccination if this document is right.
Q. Does the document say "Vaccinated ten persons, inoculated for the third time"? Is that what it said?
A. Yes, it says so. In May at Schirmeck in the control group we vaccinated three times. That is not impossible, but what I notice on this document, if you want to connect it with the Ipsen vaccine, is that it does not say anything about the Ipsen vaccine; I did not find that yet, but it does say Gildemeister.
Q. I have not mentioned anything about the Ipsen vaccine. Let us proceed, Professor, so that we get through before the noon recess. Remember, you testified you had not carried out any vaccinations in Natzweiler after January 1944. Professor, will you turn to page 7 of this little notebook on your experiments, and while this is not the only entry which shows that you carried out vaccination experiments in Natzweiler after January 1944, I think it will be sufficient for our purposes. Do you have page 7? Will you find the entry?
A. Yes, I have page 7.
Q. Will you find the entry for 25 May 1944?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that read, "Together with S inoculated, used up, five tubes of M I in Natzweiler; two ampules distilled water, three to four cubic centimeters per ampule vaccine, 0.5 cc.
The inoculation took dace during the incubation period, a transport containing also sick people, 13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died."
Then it continues to give the titer value of some of the others. Professor, don't you have to change your testimony about vaccinations in Natzweiler?
A. No, I cannot change it. I know nothing about this.
Q. Professor, let us look at words "together with S". What do you understand "together with S" to mean? It is 25 May 1944?
A. I have no idea what "S" means.
Q. You testified that the defendant Schroeder visited you and you fixed the date, 25 May 1944. Is there any possibility that "S" could mean Schroeder?
A. No, that is quite impossible. Impossible. Professor Schroeder never carried out any experiments with me or did any work in my laboratory. He was not with me in Schirmeck or Natzweiler.
Q. He was not with you in Natzweiler?
A. No.
Q. I have no further Questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The noon recess today will be extended until two o'clock. The Tribunal will now be in recess until two o'clock.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 20 June, 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may continue.
EUGEN HAAGEN - Resumed CROSS EXAMANATION - Continued BY MR. McHANEY:
Q With the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to direct a few additional questions to the witness concerning the last exhibit. This is prosecution exhibit 521 for identification which has again been handed to the witness.
Professor, will you turn to page 13 of the Exhibit?
This, if the Tribunal please, also does not appear on the translation. The notes before you - the translation before you simply concerns the note book. This chart was attached to the note book and consequently is included in the same exhibit.
Do you find a chart there, Professor, on page 13?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall your testimony to the effect that Meyer was not in a position to know anything about typhus work?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you find this chart was drawn up by Miss Crodell, your assistant?
A This is certainly a record that Miss Crodell drew up.
Q And what dates does this chart cover?
A From the 24th of May .....
Q Will you repeat the date, please. 24 May to what?
A 24 May to 6 July 1944.
Q And this shows the Weil-Felix reaction tests?
A Yes, the Weil-Felix reaction was undertaken.
Q Will you read the name which appears across the top of the chart?
A Herr Meyer.
Q No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination of this witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIP:
Q Professor, the cross examination by Mr. McHaney makes a few questions necessary.
First of all, we will discuss the old documents put in by the prosecution sometime ago me then the new ones.
First of all, a preliminary question, Professor. In your direct and also cross examination you described Becker-Freyseng's visit to you in Strassbourg. I should be interested to know, what you can say about whether Becker-Freyseng came to Strassbourg in order to visit you or whether his purpose for the trip was another and whether his visit to you was only incidental to this other purpose?
A I have already said that Becker-Freyseng, on orders from Professor Schroder, was to, if possible, meet my wishes regarding experimental animals. I told him what my wishes were. I believe I remember that Becker-Freyseng visited another institute, however, namely the Pharmacological Institute and the director there, Professor Schlemmer.
Q Thank you.
Please take document book 12 up again, Professor, and take a look at Document NO. 127 on page 94. This is your letter to Hirt of 27 June 1944 which contains the infamous concepts "control persons" and "subsequent infection." You said that in the parallel group of persons not vaccinated you could count on cases of suckness particularly in that group. In my opinion, you didn't explain clearly enough in the cross examination, why precisely in this control group you felt that you had to count on cases of sickness. Perhaps you could clarify that. Please do not go into the problem of subsequent infection at the moment.
A I shall confine myself to the interpretation I gave yesterday.
Sickness in this case means nothing more than reaction to the vaccination. As I said before, this letter was directed to laymen who wouldn't have understood more complicated terminology. That I pointed this out, the reason for that was that vaccination with injections are generally known. There have been hundreds of thousands of cases of that, so that I didn't have to point out specifically that fact, but vaccination through scarification of the skin had not been the subject of much experience heretofore. Therefore, I had to refer to my vaccinations of December and January. Therefore, for these reasons, I felt that I should point out that there would be stronger reactions, but, as I said, I did this for my own protection, so to speak.
Q Then, if I can sum up what you have said, the control group, as it is hero called, was to be vaccinated only once by a scarification process whereas the other group of 150 persons was to be given preliminary vaccinations in the usual and well-known way by intra-muscular injection, and in this regard you are saying that more severe reactions must be expected in that control group which was vaccinated only by scarification of the skin.
Now, we must turn to the documents that have been put to you by the prosecution. Perhaps, Mr. McHaney would be so good as to give me the photostatic copy that was discussed this morning. I mean the photostatic copy of Document 807. Apparently, the photostat is not here at the moment, Professor. In the meantime, we can take up another document.
I have the photostat copy now, so we can continue in our discussion of it.
You recall this document don't you? This is the document with the letterhead "Camp Physician- Concentration Camp Natzweiler." It contain these individual sentences that Mr. McHaney put to you this morning and regarding which he asked you whether these individual sentences, referred to your work. I want to clear this thing up, because in some cases I am not clear in my mind whether you think that certain of the sentences really do refer to your work.