Q In document No. 3450, under 18 March there is a phone call listed, Schirmeck 108 (Natzweiler). Now, witness to document No. 2874, exhibit 524, your letter to Dr. Rose from 4 October 1943, the Prosecutor put to you three points in this letter. The first thing he put to you is on page 2 of this document, in the original it is toward the end of the second paragraph. You are speaking here of Serum Titer Values in connection with your, and I will quote: "The Serum Titer is considerably higher, even after a single vaccination, in comparison with triple vaccinations with dead vaccines." The Prosecutor said that you said nothing in your direct examination about a triple vaccination, and when discussing the vaccinations with Schirmeck you didn't say any such vaccination took place; what is this reference then to the triple vaccinations and the Serum Titer?
AA triple vaccination was prescribed and we have the vast experience with dead vaccines that only limited agglutinative titer values resulted; that is what this sentence refers to, namely, the series of three vaccinations with the dead vaccines.
Q Then, if I understand, you, witness, this is a statement of general experience which you have had with dead, vaccines and these do not refer to any vaccination or experiments that you carried out?
A That is correct.
Q You were also asked about the next sentence by the Prosecution: "I regret that it was not possible so far to perform infections experiments on the vaccinated persons; I requested the Ahnenerbe of the SS to provide suitable persons for vaccination, but did not receive an answer as yet." Can you tell us what letter you are referring to when you say that you turned to the Ahnenerbe of the SS, but did not receive any answer?
A Here I am referring to the application that I made through Professor Hirt, and apparently Professor Hirt forwarded this letter to the Ahnenerbe. To what extent the Ahnenerbe was competent or identical with the WVHA, that I do not know, but certainly this refers to that group of persons whom I requested for protective vaccination in Natzweiler.
Q You are referring then, witness, to the group that you first asked for from Professor Hirt. We do not have this application here, but I can remind you of document No. 120, in document book 12, page 75, this letter mentions your request of 16 August 1943; signed by Sievers, it states that Sievers will be glad to help and has turned to the competent agency to see to it that the persons you wish will be made available. This letter of Sievers, is dated 30 September 1943; and document No. 2874, namely your letter to Rose is dated 4 October 1943, document 2874; is it not more than improbable that in view of the state of the mail at that time that on the 4th of October 1943, in Strassbourg, you could have received a letter sent from Waischenfeld, in Upper Frankonia on 30 September 1983?
A That can be seen from my letter to Hirt. If I had received this letter by then, I would have referred to it. This is document 120 and the letterhead is, "Institute for Military Scientific Research", and if I had received it, I should have referred to it.
Q That is what I mean, witness, but I am going to prove from the two dates involved, that on 8 October when you sent this letter to Rose, you could not yet have received the letter from Sievers on 30 September; in other words, you had no news from the Ahnenerbe; is that so?
A Yes, that is.
Q Then, witness, when in this last letter, 2674, you say that you had turned to the SS for carrying out infectious experiments, are you referring to the same thing, namely the carrying out of three vaccinations with reinstated living virus?
A Yes, but I think I have to correct a detail here. I didn't turn to the SS in a matter of infection experiments but in the matter of protective vaccinations. You said that I turned to the SS in a matter regarding infections?
Q I was simply using the same words you used in this letter. You write: "I regret that it was not possible so far to perform infectious experiments on the vaccinated persons."
A That refers to tho group that was subsequently to be postvaccinated to ascertain the anti-infectious protection through Serological examination that would follow.
Q Now, down here further I would like to discuss something with you -- skipping one paragraph, toward the end, I quote: "According to our opinion of today regarding the course of infection in virus diseases, especially in their beginning, the Serological diagnosis for the classification of the immunity has again to be considered as of greater importance." What do you mean by this Serological diagnosis when you are classifying, the state of immunity? Do you mean the WeilFelix reaction and the hereby ascertained Serological result or what are you referring to?
A Yes, that is right, the Weil-Felix reaction is of great assistance in ascertaining immunity and this agrees with what I have already said here about the ascertaining of anti infectious immunity by Serological means. When I am referring to virus diseases, I am referring to experiences that others have had in the general subject of other virus diseases.
Q Now, witness, another question about this document. The Prosecutor compared the two concepts used in this document, You said you spoke of subsequent infectious experiments and in the last sentence, you say, I quote: "If we can get experimental subjects from the SS for test vaccinations....", are you referring to two different things on the one hand when you speak of test vaccinations and on the other hand, subsequent test infections, or do these both refer to the same thing. Are you using the two concepts simultaneously in tho words you explained in your direct examination?
A Yes, that is so. I am testing here the anti-infectious immunityafter the protective vaccination.
Q I believe that sufficiently clarified this document, witness. I shall turn now to the last document put to you, document NO. 3852.
THE PRESIDENT: Before starting examination on that documents Counsel, the Tribunal will be in recess for a few minutes.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find, their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q. Witness, the last document I should like to discuss with you is 3852, Exhibit 521. If possible I should first like to see the original. I would be grateful to the representative of the General Secretary if he would give me the original of this document, Exhibit 521, Document No.3852.
Witness, you had this document before you this morning or a photostat of it which was submitted as the original. Can you tell us did you know this document before it was handed to you this morning?
A. Perhaps I might see the photostat again. I should like to add that in part the figures given here agree with my published report but the dates given here and other information which does not agree with my paper. If the other information about vaccination is correct I think I would have had no reason not to include this in my published work, but I should like to ask to have the original brought here. I don't know whether that is possible, or whether the authenticity can be ascertained in any other way.
Q. Witness, I asked you whether you knew the document before you saw it this morning. That's the first question we have to go into before we can go on.
A. After such a long time I can't remember exactly how the record was written but it contains so many unclear things, that I must say I don't know it in this form.
Q. Well, you know the handwriting of your assistant, witness. I believe Miss Crodell worked with you for years. Can you say anything about whether this document was written by Miss Crodell, whether you think that all of it was written by Miss Crodell, or whether perhaps she wrote part of it and did not write other parts?
A. That is difficult to say. In general the handwriting looks like Miss Crodell's but some parts look a little different.
I think that could only be decided by showing it to Miss Cordell herself.
Q. You are no doubt quite right, professor. The only person who can identify the document one hundred percent would be Miss Crodell, but we do not have her here. Therefore, I must unfortunately ask you do you consider that the entire document was written by Miss Crodell or do you believe that it was not entirely written by Miss Crodell?
A. Well, to judge by the dates in here and the testimony which I have given and what Hirz said about the vaccinations there is such disagreement that I must say the record could not have contained the data in this form.
Q. Then, I understand you to say, professor, that because of the handwriting and the contents you have considerable doubt that this document was written entirely by Miss Cordell?
A. Yes, I must say that because I knew nothing about vaccinations at this time.
MR. MC HANNEY: If the Tribunal please, I must object to the formartion of the questions being put to the witness. It is quite obvious that an attack is being made on the authenticity of this document. We have had several unfortunate incidents already in this trial in connection with the authenticity of various documents. Now, if this witness wishes to attack that document I will have to insist that questions be directed to him in such a manner that he identifies particularly those sections of the diary in which he says Miss Crodell did write and those sections she did not write. Now we have just got general questions so far about "Do you think some of them were not written by her" and we have no identification of the particular passages the witness is prepared to testify Miss Crodell did not write. I think getting a general statement of this sort from the witness is not apt to correct anything.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. The witness should identify the protions of the document which he says are in Miss Cordell's writing and these which he doubts are.
I would ask counsel for Prosecution where the original of this document is?
MR. MC HANNEY: The document was obtained by Prosecution some five days ago from the French authorities in Strassbourg, particularly the investigating official who now have returned.
THE PRESIDENT: Prosecution simply procured a photostatic copy of the document, is that correct?
MR. MC HANNEY: No, your Honor, the original was brought to Nurnberg by the French authority in whose custody it was and who did not wish to surrender it to us. We had the original here, we had it photostated and the official did not find it convenient to prolong his stay in Nurnberg and he has returned with the original.
TEE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may proceed.
Dr. TIPP: Mr. President, of course I shall ask the witness which parts he considers authentic and which not. First, I wanted to ask him whether he had may doubts at all.
Now, Professor, you have the photostat before you. It is regrettable that the original is not available. I do not believe we will be able to get along without the original. If there are doubts of the authenticity of a document, which is apparently the case here, it can be determined only with the aid of the original whether these doubts are justified or not. A comparison of the handwriting and of the material perhaps can be performed with the original, but not at all, or only with great difficulty, in a photostat. I should be very grateful to the Tribunal, therefore, for a ruling that the prosecution get the original from. Strasbourg and submit it in evidence. If these doubts are cleared up, then the original can be removed from the files and replaced by a photostat, but in this case it seems to me absolutely necessary to submit the original in order to determine whether the entries are all in the same handwriting. This can be determined only from the original.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not yet seen the photostat. After the Tribunal has examined the photostat at the end of the examination, some ruling can be made.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q.- Witness, perhaps you can show some striking points where you have occasion to assume that Miss Crodell did not make he entry.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, are you limiting that question to the test of the document or to the format of the handwriting?
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I am afraid I can answer this question only after the witness has explained on what his doubts are based.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the witness has made it abundantly clear, and I think that the cross examination also made it clear, that there is a sharp contrast in the testimony of the witness and certain entries in the diary. Now, I think that if he is contesting the authen ticity of the document, he must do so not on the basis of his recollection of events of which he has already testified to at great length, but on comparison of the handwriting.
He knows Miss Crodell's handwriting very well. She worked with him many years, and there is also a sample of Miss Crodell's writing on an independent document where he recognized her signature. Now, if he wishes to go through the document and say "The entry on such and such a page appears to me to be not the handwriting of Miss Crodell", very well, but I can't see anything is to bo gained by his testifying to events now. He has already done that.
THE PRESIDENT: Submit the photostat to the Tribunal, now.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q.- Witness, are you familiar with the handwriting of Miss Crodell?
A.- Yes, I do.
Q. Will you please examine this document NO-3852 and state whether or not it or any portion of it is in the handwriting of Miss Crodell and, if so, what portions are in her handwriting and what portions are not?
A.- It looks as if this were Miss Crodell's handwriting, but the dates are not right. There's an entry of the 6th of July about the taking of blood at Schirmeck, 10 persons, page 3. This must be something about seriological reaction. It seems to me that that date is much too late. Secondly, I am not aware that on the 4th of October, 1943, 20 people were innoculated.
DR. TIPP: Witness, the Judge asked you which entries you think are not in Miss Crodell's handwriting. You are not a handwriting expert and the Court cannot expect that.
JUDGE SEBRING: Yes, the Court can expect it if he knows, of his own knowledge, whose handwriting it is. Certainly, the Court can expect it. If he knows of his own knowledge that it is her handwriting, he can say so and he docs not have to be an expert to say so.
WITNESS: The handwriting looks like Hiss Crodell's.
DR. TIPP: Then I must formulate the question as follows, witness...
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Then, counsel, the witness states that, in his opinion, the documents are all in Miss Crodell's handwriting, The only question which the Tribunal and the witness are concerned with is whether or not there are errors in the writing. That is an entirely different question. The witness may, of course, state that, in his opinion, there are errors in what was written, but from what the witness said, I understand we start from the proposition that the entries are in the handwriting of Miss Crodell.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q.- That is what I understood the witness to say too, Mr. President.
Witness, am I understand that from the handwriting which you have before you you can determine that some parts were written by Miss Crodell and other parts were not? Please testify clearly about the handwriting alone?
A.- The handwriting is that of Miss Crodell.
Q.- Well then, the question of the Tribunal is cleared up.
Now, there comes another question which the President just asked. From which entries do you believe that Miss Crodell was mistaken? That's another question.
A.- The first entry which I think is wrong is the 6th of July. "Drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons." The vaccinations were performed in May, as the witness Hirz has confirmed, and the serological examinations were undertaken four weeks after the vaccinations, It seems to mo that this date is a little late. The only explanation I can think of is that Miss Crodell entered it late and made this mistake.
On the 27th of January 1943, 20 persons were vaccinated with one cc each. That cannot be a vaccination in Schirmeck. It is so ambigious here that I can't tell what kind of vaccine it's supposed to be. It says nothing about animal experiments as it does above in April and May where the mice controls are entered. That's one thing.
Then, 27th of January 1944 - once it says 1943, and then again it says 1944. We did not vaccinate anybody in Schirmeck.
As I remember, the figures may be right, but then there is another discrepancy, 14 October, apparently 1943, where 10 persons were innoculated three times with one cc.
Those are the parts which I cannot testify to.
Then there is another entry, 25 May 1944. I can't understand what "S" means and what "M" means. Miss Crodell certainly would not have used these abbreviations because nobody would have understood them later Q.- Then if I understand you correctly, witness, those are the points where you believe that this record could be mistaken?
A.- Yes, it contains mistakes which I cannot explain.
Q.- If I have understood you correctly, the first point was two entries which you compared, one 27 January 1943 and one of 27 January 1944. I shall quote:
"27 January 1943 (9 months) mixed with the same amount as 21 May distilled water per tube, 20 persons 1 cc each."
The entry of 27 January 1944:
"(8months) mixed with the same amount as of 21 May 2 cc distilled water per Tube, innoculated 20 persons with 1 cc, each."
The two entries agree, is that right?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Then, if those two entries are correct that means that you performed the same inoculation on the same number of persons twice exactly one year apart?
A.- Yes, that's what it looks like.
Q.- Is that possible, witness?
A.- No, that is quite impossible. On the 27 January 1943 it says "9 months". We didn't carry out any vaccinations at all. We didn't have any vaccine. On the 27th of January 1944, which is much later, it says "8 months".
Q.- Then, you say these two entries show that the entry is not correct as far as the contents are concerned?
A.- Yes, it is wrong. I can't say what the mistake is, but there is certainly a big mistake here.
Q.- Now, witness, the entry of 6 July "Drawings of blood, Schirmeck 10 persons", that's the fourth entry on page 3. I quote: "6 July, Drawings of blood Schirmeck, 10 persons (3 had fever)" and then follow 3 figures which are apparently titer values. Then it goes on "the other two were not here anymore". Then comes the average titer. Witness, can you tell me why your assistant writes "Drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons" and then she gives the titer values of 3 and writes "two are not here any more"? The Prosecutor concluded that the two persons were not there. Do you believe that this interpretation of the prosecutor is correct, or do you see some other possibility of explaining this entry since it speaks of the "taking of blood from 10 persons"?
A.- I have already said that it says here "2 were not here any more". It probably means the two persons were not in the camp. There might be the suspicion that they had died. I spoke of that under direct examination. He certainly would have made a notation that two had died. The two who died, died two days after the vaccination according to Hirz.
Q.- Now, witness, something else. We must assume that blood was taken from "10 persons, three had fever", as Miss Crodell writes. Then, it gives 3 titer values and says "the other two were not here". In my opinion, this does not mean that two persons were gone because it would not have mentioned the taking of blood from 10 persons, but that some material was missing. I don't know whether my interpretation is correct. It is just a matter of interpreting the document.
MR. Mc HANEY: If the Tribunal please, I object to the question and I ask that the witness be directed not to answer it. I think Dr. Tipp realizes full well that he has gone clear beyond the permissible bounds of examination of his own witness. He has been leading him around by the nose with this document for about five or ten minutes.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, I do not believe I am leading the witness around by the nose or that I have overstepped the bounds of permissible examination. I am trying to interpret the document which is my right when a document is submitted. I am asking the witness what his opinion is on these various points.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness should be the one to interpret the document, not the counsel. The question is objected to, but you can ask the witness to explain the document.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, may I ask - is the witness to answer this question which I asked?
THE PRESIDENT (Interrupting): The objection to that question is sustained. It is leading and suggesting.
Q. Very well, Witness, the titer values of eight persons are listed here, probably you remember these are titer values of the persons given in your paper?
A. Yes. I recognize them.
Q. So that the taking of blood of ten persons refers to your vaccinations?
A. Yes.
Q. Now witness if I remember correctly, you told us on your direct examination that you vaccinated only eight persons in this group?
A. We vaccinated 28 of the persons altogether in Schirmeck. One group was eight persons. They were taken of by Antloff.
Then there was a group of 20 persons who were vaccinated and who were taken care of by pharmacist Hirz. Antloff does not say who in this group of 8 persons died. Hirz says in the group of 20 which he took care of, two are supposed to have died on the second day after the vaccination. The eight persons were vaccinated when Antloff was the nurse.
Q. Then you believe, Witness, that these "two who were not there anymore," - we do know whether it was people or material or what, - cannot refer to the second group of 20 persons, but only to the first group of 8 persons. Is that right?
A. Yes. That is right.
MR. McHANEY: I object to the question as being leading and suggestive.
THE PRESIDENT: The general rule for determining whether or not a question is leading is whether it can be answered with the words "yes" or "no". If it can't it is a leading question. On some matters, you may direct the witnesses attention to the portion of the document and ask what it means, and the witness will explain the meaning of the document.
DR. TIPP: I did not think I was asking a question. I thought I was merely summing up what the witness had just said.
THE PRESIDENT: That is objectionable, too.
Q. Witness, we will go on to the next entry, 4 October 1943. It says, "Innoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, 0.5 per person." I cannot understand this entry, as it stands. As a scientist, can you explain to us what this means?
A. In this entry of 4 October 1943, there is no detailed information. It merely says 0.5 per person. I cannot understand that entry. If it were correct, it would say, "0.5 cc" and then it would say what it was. It just says 0.5.
Q. Then comes the entry of 27 January 1943. Witness, you have the photostate before you. I do not. Is this entry directly under the 4th of October 1943 in the photostat?
A. Yes, directly under it.
Q. Witness, can you imagine why Miss Crodell first describes something supposed to have taken place on the 1st of October 1943, and suddenly she jumps back to the 27th of January 1943?
A. No; I cannot say. And the entry does not show what it was about.
Q. As far as I know myself, Miss Crodell worked for you for a long time?
A. Yes.
Q. Was she such a sloppy worker as this document seems to indicate that she made these entries at random? That is the conclusion we would have to draw.
No. Miss Crodell was very careful. She was making entries in the record by the date. She cannot enter an entirely different date later. That seems impossible. Besides there is no indication what this about. It just says 27 January 1943, nine months, mixed with the same amount as 21 May, distilled water per tube, 20 persons, 1 cc each. That is an unusual way to keep a record. It should say what vaccine it is and so forth.
Q. This 27 January 1943, mixed with the same amount as 21 May, that is on Page 3. In my copy there is an entry 21 May 1943 on Page 5.
A. I cannot find the page.
Q. Witness, we were just talking about Page 3. There is an entry of 27 January 1943.
A. Yes. Yes, I have that.
Q. It reads, "Mixed with the same amount as 21 May."
A. Yes. I have that.
Q. And on Page 5, you will find an entry of 21 Nay 1943.
A. Yes. I see it.
Q. But before that, I do not see any entry of 21 May 1943. It is remarkable that on the 27th of January 194?, the witness already knew that amount was going to be used on the 21st of May 1943. There is a groat discrepancy here. If I look at Page 4, there is an entry from 1943 again. I believe, Witness, we could find quite a number of such discrepancies in the document.
I don't know if the Tribunal is interested in them. To me, however, the points which I have just been discussing, especially the last one, that on the 27th of January 1943, referring to the 21st of Hay 1943, seems to be enough to prove that the document in this form is not fully valid evidence.
MR. McHANEY: I will ask that the last remarks of the defense counsel be striken from the record as being argumentative, and should be reserved for his final argument.
DR. TIPP: Since we are dealing with the probative value of a document, we can decide it only by means of arguments. I have made factual statements, and I think I can afford to present the conclusions.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not the proper time for argument, but counsel may proceed.
Q. Witness, let us examine the document more closely. Let us look at Page 4. First of all, there is an entry of 14 May 1943. A capital "S", then three plus marks, 11 persons, 11 Tubes. Witness, can you explain this entry?
A. It is 11 passages, not 11 persons. That is the number of passages. And as to the 75, 1 to 10 dilluted; that is the dillution of the yolk sack. Then it was dried and put into 11 tubes.
Q. That must be a laboratory entry, Witness?
A. Yes. It is a laboratory entry.
Q. Then it goes on, 10 October, five months, innoculated ten persons in Schirmeck, 7 with 0.5 cc each.
A. No. I think that says twice with 0.5 cc each, on the 10th of October, apparently 1943.
Q. Now witness, can you explain something to me on Page 4?
The first entry says 14 May 1943. Then comes 10 October apparently also 1943, for a year is not given, then comes 27 January 1944.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the discrepancy between the English translation and the German translation apparently--
DR. TIPP: I only have the German text.
MR. McHANEY: IF the Tribunal please, under Page the old Page 5 of the English Translation, the entry which reads, "27 January, 1944," appears on the original copy as 27 January 1943. I thought I would call that to your attention earlier in the day. That is what the witness has been testifying to as a discrepancy of one year.
THE PRESIDENT: That is to what I had reference. I mistook the entry.
MR. McHANEY: The entry under Page 6 is correct, "27 January."
Q Perhaps the witness can help us. Professor, was the entry on page 3, 27 January 1933?
A Yes.
Q And on page four there is another entry.
A 27 January 1944.
Q Those are two entries which have the same wording.
A Except for the figures in parenthesis -- they are not the same. 27 January 1933, that figure was apparently changed in the photostat.
Q Well, let's go on, witness. On page 3, the last entry, 27 January 1944; is that right?
A Yes.
Q On page 5, the first entry is 21 Hay 1943; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Now, witness, can you toll me why Miss Crodell, who according to the Prosecution is supposed to have kept this record, mixes the dates up so. It is not customary, is it, in scientific records to juggle the dates around like that. Maybe it was customary in Strassbourg, but that is not by experience.
A Well, if the pages agree with the dates, then this cannot be a regular record such as is kept in a laboratory.
Q Thank you, witness. I don't believe the rest of the entries are of any particular importance as far as the probative value of the document is concerned. I come to page 8; I believe it is the entry of the 25th of May, 1933. Do you have that entry, witness?
A Yes, 23 May 1933.
Q In my copy it reads, together with capital "S", innoculated five tubes of M-1 at Natzweiler, two ampules distilled water, three to four cc 0.5 cc. I do not understand these entries, witness. Perhaps you can help us. Tell us what it means about together with "S". Is there anything noticeable about this "S" you have to state, or might it be some other letter. I would like to know what you have to say about this.
A If that were a real entry in a record, it would have to be so that one could understand the "S". I can't imagine what this "S" means, and I don't know what "M-1" means either. Those are things which are not written like that in a record.
Q Are those scientific abbreviations, witness, which are used in typhus research, or what else might it be?
A If so, I would understand it; and I don't.
Q You can't explain it?
A No, I can't.
Q "The inoculation took place during the incubation (in a transport containing also sick people)". You have already said, Professor, that Miss Crodell worked with you for years and was very reliable. Can you imagine that Hiss Crodell would make such an entry, especially the words -- "during the incubation". What does that mean?
A Well, that would mean that we know that the people were infected with typhus; and during the incubation period, that is the period between the infection and the outbreak of the disease, they were vaccinated; but it says in parenthesis it was in a transport including sick people.
Q That means that in the transport, which was vaccinated, there were some sick people. As far as I know, incubation period means the period between the infection and the open outbreak of the disease; is that right?
A Yes, that is right.
Q Now, when people in a transport are sick, when it is learned later that there are sick people in the transport, can one speak of an incubation period. Can you know what the incubation period is when the people were sick?
A Then we would have to know exactly when these people were bitten by an infected louse.
Q In other words, you could not know that.