Q. Now, in the sentence in the same paragraph, the first paragraph, the fourth sentence where it states: "He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition", did another word appear in the same place as the character for "somnolent condition"? Did another word appear in the same place as the character for "somnolent" now appears and can you make out whether or not that other character that has been erased was the word "semi-conscious" and has now been replaced by "somnolent"? I think the original character can be wellrecognized to read "semi-conscious".
A. What is legible under here says: "Numb, drowsy".
Q. After the sentence that I have just read: "He asks for water-
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand the witness' explanation of that last double reading of the shorthand. What was your explanation, witness?
THE WITNESS: The German word "benommen", numb.
THE PRESIDENT: Numb? Not unconscious?
THE WITNESS: Numb.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. In the first instance, in the sentence: "He takes little notice of his surroundings", is an erasure noticeable there in that the word "no" has been replaced by the word "little"?
A. Something has been written over.
Q. Will you show that to the Tribunal, please, that character that has been written over? Would you point that out to them, doctor? Point out the character in that sentence: "He takes little notice of his surroundings", and point that out, this character here (indicating) on the second line of characters.
MR. HARDY: Here it is, your Honor, the last character on the page.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Now, would you show tho Tribunal also where the word "Semiconscious" or "numb" appeared and that has also been written over? That is the last character on the third line.
A. Yes, here (indicating).
Q. Now, after the sentence: "He asks for water only when he awakes from his somnolent condition," which is the fourth stenographic line on the back of Chart C-23, we notice that an entire line or half line has been erased. This half-line had previously contained stenographic symbols but they are now no longer identifiable. Is that correct?
A. Yes; something has been erased here.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors can see the red eraser that has been used to erase that half line of characters; the impression of the eraser is still obvious there.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Now, Professor, in the sentence in the next paragraph of stenographic notes, the second sentence reads: "The general condition gives no cause for alarm." Is that correct?
Q. Now, throughout your writing of these characters you, between each words, usually space, leave a space, to indicate another word, do you not? That is very clear throughout your transcription. You have left spaces between each character signifying words. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that differs -- well, that differs. Sometimes some words are written closer together, quite closely, for example here (indicating).
Q. Well now, here in this sentence where it says, "The general condition gives no cause for alarm", the word "no" -- that is, this character here -- does not have the spaces between it that all the other characters on the shoot have, does it? In fact, the symbol for "no" touches the previous symbol for "General condition", leaving no spacing. Did you add the word "no" at a later date in a different pencil?
A. No. I do that quite frequently when something is written above the line in stenography that I write it over again.
Q. Now, if you will turn to the sentence in the third paragraph which reads: "Respiration somewhat flatter moderately frequently", appeared originally, did it not, before an erasure was made? The word, instead of "somewhat", didn't it read originally "Respiration is flatter, moderately frequently"?
A. It still says so: "somewhat frequent; moderately frequent." I wrote that twice.
Q. Well, now, how does that sentence read?
A. "Respiration somewhat flatter, moderately frequent; respiration 25 per minute.
Q. Did the word "is", the character for the word "is", appear in that sentence before a change was made?
A. What word?
Q. "Is" -- "i - s".
Q. Can't you clearly see in that sentence that the word "is" has been erased and in its place the word "somewhat" has been written, the character "somewhat"?
Q. You can't see that. Did you look at it through the glass, doctor?
A. In stenography I write the word "is".
Q. Now, later in this same sentence, Dr. Beiglboeck, after the word "flatter", didn't the word "hardly" appear originally in place of the word "moderately"? The word "hardly" was erased and replaced by "moderately" and then crossed out twice.
A. Here it said "troublesome".
Q. It says, "respiration flatter". It could say "hardly frequent" before the changes, couldn't it?
A. "Moderately" it says here. "Hardly moderately frequent" it could say.
Q. Has the character been changed at all?
A. I said already originally it said "troublesome".
Q. Have any erasures been made in that sentence?
A. It was written over, written over.
Q. Add then crossed out?
Q. What word was written over? Is that word there that is written over that is now legible the word "moderately" or is that the word "hardly"?
A. "Hardly" it did not say here. It said "troublesome."
Q. Well, which character said "troublesome", the one that is legible now or the one that has been written over?
A. That says "moderately it was troublesome".
Q. Well now, in the sentence which starts out in the eight paragraph with the words: "Heartbeats very low poorly audible," in that sentence has a character been erased and another one written over? Has the character "scarcely" been erased and replaced by "poorly"? I believe the marks of the original symbol for "Scarcely" can still be clearly distinguished, can they not?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Who made these changes, doctor? Did you make them yourself?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. When did you make them?
A. I can't tell you that any more exactly when I did it.
Q. Did you make them at Dachau?
Q. Did you make them in Nurnberg?
Q. Did you erase those shorthand characters that appear on the fourth line here in Nurnberg?
A. Yes, I did that too.
Q. Now, doctor, these notes that are on the back here, I note that you state that the bulb of the eyeball -- that the eyes are deeply haloed. That is the fifth paragraph.
What does it mean if the bulb of the eyeball goes soft in a patient?
A. It doesn't mean that they become soft but that they sink back into the head. It is a sign of dehydration.
Q. Well now, we have here in the first paragraph, the paragraph that "Thirst assumes forms difficult to endure," and so forth. Now, in this sommolent condition that is referred to -- now, is the half-closure of the eyes in a sommolent patient a bad prognostic sign?
A. The half closed eyes, of course, can also express sleepiness, sommolence. In this case that was the case. It is apathy. One sort of dozes. Sometimes one sees something; sometimes one opens the eyes and then one closes them again.
Q. Well now, had the original word that you had written in that paragraph, that is "semi-conscious" or numbness" -- would that convey an entirely different meaning that the word "somnolent"?
A. Semi-consciousness, drownsiness, and somnolence are about the same.
Q. Do you mean if a person is sleepy that that is the same as a person that is numb?
A. Well, I mean sleepy -- yes. Numbness, of course, is not the same as sleepiness, but in those cases it was that they dozed. I don't want to say sleepy but they were drowsy.
Q. Could you tell us what the medical term "lagophthalmus" means? I will show you the word, doctor and spell it for the court reporters: l-a-g-o-p-h-t-h-a-l-m-u-s. Can you tell us what that word means medically?
A. Lagophthalmus -- that was not a lagophthalmus. It was a drowsy -- lying. It says right afterwards that he asked for water. Thus it was not a lagophthalmus.
Q. I haven't asked you whether or not these conditions are symptoms of lagophthalmus. I am asking you what is lagophthalmus medically?
A. Lagophthalmus being the open condition of the lids.
Q. Well, is it a general condition in adult patients which is often found when the patient is approaching death?
A. Yes -- well, this condition did not exist here.
Q. I am asking you about the medical term lagophthalmus now, as a medical man. You are a physician. I am not asking you now to compare this with the conditions of this Subject No. 23.
A. Lagophthalmus can arise for varying reasons. Of course, it can also occur in a temporary unconsciousness. It is not a certain sign that the person is near death.
THE PRESIDENT: You have been asked to describe the condition, what the condition is. Now, just please describe the condition in the words stated by counsel for the prosecution.
THE WITNESS: I said already that it is the remaining open of the lids, that they remain open.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Go ahead.
A. Thus by lagophthalmus one mEans an open condition of thE lids with the eyes turned around, the eyeballs. That is, the eyeballs are in the same condition as they are during sleep but the lids remain open; but that isn't what was talked about here. It says expressly that he is lying there with his eyes half closed. If it had been this condition I probably would have used the more appropriate medical term, lagophthalmus.
Q. When did you, as appears in these notations, resort -- which is in the last sentence -- resort to the bulbous reflex examination?
A. On the occasion of the other reflexes I also examined that one.
Q. What type of examination is that, doctor?
A. It is a reflex. One presses the bulbous and at the same time one takes the pulse.
Q. Could you demonstrate that, what a person does to take a bulbous reflex examination, on yourself?
What do they do?
A. One presses on the eyeball (indicating).
Q. Well, isn't that a test most commonly used to decide whether an unconscious, pulseless and motionless man is dead or alive?
A. No. It is a reflex which in any clinical examination this is examined. In a dead person this is not examined in any case, not at all. It is quite an ordinary reflex such as "Romberg" and "Babinski" and other abdominal reflexes. So the bulbous reflex was examined here too.
Q. Now, the next sentence just above "Bulbous reflex positive" we see the words "Tonus of the Bulb of the eye bad." How, what does that mean?
A. That means that the bulb tonus is bad. It says here the bulb tonus is bad. In a thirsting person this can be seen too, that the eye bull becomes somewhat softer.
A. Hypothetically, Doctor, disregarding this remark about "tonus of the eye ball bad" for the moment, what does it mean medically to a physician if the bulb of the eye ball goes soft in a patient?
A. That can mean very different things.
Q. Does it mean that death is approaching?
Q. Under no circumstances?
A. Under some circumstances yes, but here, in a thirsting person, no.
Q. I didn't say in a thirsting person. I said hypothetically, clinically, what does it mean to a clinician or an intern if a patient's - if the bulb in a patient's eye ball has gone soft? Does it have any prognostic sign whatsoever to him?
A. Well, not necessarily.
Q. Now, this test "Romberg 2 plus" or whatever it may be. That does that refer to - Romberg, plus, plus?
What is a two plus Romberg?
A. Romberg is a reflex or an examination concerning the so-called ataxia. Why, in these patients, not only in the one that is described here, but in most cases, it was a positive Romberg, that is connected with a weakness of the muscles. If the muscles are somewhat weakened and one gets up, one is somewhat uncertain and that results in a positive Romberg.
Q. Well, does it mean that the patient can no longer stand on his feet?
A. That means that when he is standing on his feet he is unsure.
Q. Well, isn't that the same symptom as the witness Tschofenik described in the patient who shortly thereafter died?
A. I don't believe that the witness Tschofenik can describe a Romberg. If I remember correctly, the witness Tschofenik described that a long time afterwards. Somebody from the Internal Clinic came and was X-rayed in his station and he thought that this man from the Internal Clinic was one of my experimental subjects. If a condition of thirst is interrupted by the administration of liquid, then this condition disappears and the patient recovers instantly. Later on, he cannot fall ill with it any more. That does not exist in medicine even if you try as hard as you can.
Q. Well, I am not contending that Tschofenik was qualified to determine what a Romberg plus was, but Tschofenik could well have determined whether or not the man who came to be X-rayed was able to stand on his feet, couldn't he? He could observe that as a layman, could he not?
A. Every person who is thirsting has difficulty standing on his feet. After three or four days of thirst it is already very difficult to stand on your feet because the muscles are dry and they tire very quickly and because there is a certain uncertainty of the movements which aries therefrom. This does not mean anything but the fact that the muscles have boon deprived of water.
Q. And Tschofenik said that there was nothing wrong with this man's lung condition, didn't he? The man he mentions in his affidavit. There was no other pathological reasons for the man to die, didn't he?
A. Yes, well I believe that the people who Tschofenik let die - that there was no reason that they should die.
The man that we are concerned with here, #30, he was discharged by me with a weight of 60 kilograms.........
Q. (Interrupting) Just a moment. Let's stay in Case 23. #30 you can take up later. Do you exclude the possibility that in Case #23 the man you describe in such a condition as indicated by your stenographic notes, is not one and the same man as described by Tschofenik in his affidavit?
A. These stenographic notes refer, first of all, not at all to Case 23 but to Case 30.
Q. Why are they written on the back of case 23?
A. Probably it was lying next to it and I made the notes here before the interruption.
Q. Then, it's Case 30 that the man was in such a condition that he might be one and the same man as outlined by Tschofenik in his affidavit?
A. The man who Tschofenik described did not exist. But these notes refer to Case 30.
Q. I have no further questions today, Your Honor. I will continue the examination tomorrow if you wish to adjourn at this time.
DR. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, I only want to ask you whether I should order the witness to come again tomorrow. The witness Mettbach.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in that connection, the witness Mettbach, according to the statement of counsel, lives only in Furth, Bavaria, which is only a matter of a mile from here, and I don't see that it will be necessary to call that witness immediately. He could be stalled off until a later date one called at the convenience of the Tribunal inasmuch as he lives only in nearby Furth.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it will be better to wait for that witness until he can be called later since he lives only a few miles from Nurnberg. He will still be available as far as you know as a witness at some later time.
MR. HARDY: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Put these in order. It is called to the attention of all parties that all these records have been impounded and are to be turned over to the custody of the Secretary General.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 12 June 1947)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 12 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, will it be possible for the Marshal to move the other microphone down to this table so that we can use it for the purpose of this interrogation?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you bring the movable microphope down?
MR. HARDY: While we're waiting for him to bring the movable microphone down, Your Honor, defense counsel for Earl Brandt has requested permission to interrogate Walter Neff, the witness who appeared before this Tribunal earlier in the prosecution's case in chief. He has filed his application to interrogate Walter Neff and that is agreeable with the prosecution. Defense counsel desires a ruling of the Tribunal granting him permission to interrogate Walter Neff.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for defendant Karl Brandt having requested permission to interview Walter Neff and the prosecution having no objection, the Tribunal orders that the request of counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt is granted and defense counsel may interview Walter Neff.
WILHELM BEIGLBOECK - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. HARDY:
Q Professor Beiglboeck, as I understood yesterday, the stenographic notes, which are found on the reverse side of Graph #C-23, refer to Case #30. Is that correct.
Q Then at this time, Your Honor, I would like to have Case #30 marked A, B, and C.
Professor Beiglboeck, on Chart B-30 you have made a mark or an arrow with a blue circle on the end thereof, indicating the beginning of the experiment, and this arrow is drawn in a curved fashion which is rather difficult for me to decipher. Now, could you tell us just when this experiment began? Whether it began on the 22nd day of August, the ninth day of the experiment, or whether it began on the 23rd as indicated by the arrow?
A The experiments all began on the 22nd.
Q How do you account for the irregularity of the arrow which you have drawn in Chart B-30?
A I can't remember any more why I made the sign there.
Q This sign, of course, was made when you evaluated the reports some months after the experiments had been completed at Dachau?
Q I may point out to Your Honors what I am referring to in that Dr, Beiglboeck's arrow to indicate the beginning of the experiments, which he maintains began on the 22nd of August, which coincides with the fact that the blue vertical line under the black blunt line in the middle of the graph on Chart B-30 indicates that the subject received 1000 cc of sea water, which would be more logical to assume that the experiment began either on the 22nd or 21st, rather than as indicated by this irregular arrow.
Now, Professor Beiglboeck, this experimental subject is one who drank 1,000 cc of sea water for a period of how many days?
A For nine days.
Q Is it obvious from Chart B-30 and C-30 that this experimental subject cheated and drank normal water?
A That did happen on the 25th, From the 25th to the 26th he lost only 300 grams of weight. From the 28th to 29th, he lost only 200 grams. Therefore, in those two days, he certainly drank fresh water. From his retrocide it is also visible that the values decrease here again, then it increases, the it decreases again, and then, apparently, he is thirsting again.
Q Then, of course, the lack of indication of excessive urinary output, as opposed to the intake, is indicative that the subject cheated?
A Well, in any case, the urine output is much to small as it is recorded here. It must also be one of the cases who did away with some of the urine output. At first, I thought, when I saw these amounts of urine, that in these cases there was retention due to the salt, and that confused me, and I thought that, at first, some salt is retained, because, in the urine analysis, small amounts of salt were contained in the urine and therefore, at the moment, I was not certain of the course this experiment was taking. For if salt is retained, water can be retained too and, therefore, it is possible too that the loss of weight is slight. Only later on when I calculated the results I found that he must have thrown away some of the urine output.
Q. On the 28th it shows an indication that the subject has lost two kil. of weight; the urinary output would not indicate that he should have lost weight, would it?
Q. It that why you state that it is obvious that this subject must have thrown away some of his urine?
A. It become obvious because in the period immediately following the experiments there was no increased elimination of salt. If there had been a retention of salt during the experiment then in the period following the experiment this salt which had been retained would have had to be eliminated; and from that I could recognize that my original opinion that there was retention of salt, and that therefore the amount of urine was reduced, could not be correct, but that the urine must have been thrown away.
Q. On the 28th of August on Chart 3-30, the 15th day of the experiment, we note in the graph section the initials "L.P." What does that mean, doctor?
A. In red pencil that means lumbar puncture.
Q. Can you tell us what was the purpose of performing a lumbar puncture on this subject?
A. At that time he complained somewhat about headaches, and I imagined that if retention of salt had taken place, the salt in the blood as well as in the brain fluid must nave increased; therefore, I believed that if I would undertake a lumbar juncture I could reduce the store of salt in the body fluid. That was the reason.
Q. Now on the 30th of August, as indicated on the Chart C-30, the 17th day of the experiment, we note the familiar red arrow with a red circle on the end thereof, indicating an interruption in the experiment, the initials "H.P." in red pencil; will you tell us why and what that means and why you performed that?
A. H. P. , I have said already, it means that the interruption was made by an intravenous injection of a hypotanic sugar solution, and in some cases salt solution, in the case of thirsting persons.
Q. And then in the same block that is the 30th of August, in Chart C-30, the 17th day of the experiment, we see ******* immediately below the initials "HP" in red pencil in blue pencil the initials "L.P."; will you tell us what that means?
A. In blue it means liver puncture.
Q. Will you toll us what was the purpose of performing a liver puncture on this subject?
A. That was always the same. I have already told you that I made some of these liver punctures because Professor Eppinger told me at the time that one should see whether this slight enlargement if the liver was accompanied by some changes in the liver.
Q. From these charts is there any indication that this patient or subject became ill? I note on the 30th of August on Chart C-30, on the 31st, that his temperature did rise above normal, and then we note of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and 4th of September a considerable drop in temperature; was this subject an ill man?
A. This slight rise in temperature after the conclusion of the experiment happens in very many cases. That is a temperature of 37.4 cent.; that is practically no fever; and later on ho had normal temperatures. Moreover, he very quickly gained weight.
Q. And these descriptive notes in shorthand on the back of Chart C-23, I refer to No. 30, indicate the condition of this subject that is charted here on charts A-30, B-30, and C-30?
A. That is the condition immediately before the discontinuation. That was on the evening of the 30th of August, in other words. The condition which is described here, is the condition of a strong dehydration, that is a thirst condition. The changes which I described here concern the muscles, the hypotanic condition of the muscles, the increase of the reflexes, which are seen on the basis of these changes in the muscles, the dehydration of the mucuous membrane, which I described as dehydration here; a certain apathy, which is expressed by thirst.
Q. Professor Biegelboeck, in these stenographic notes on Line 4, where the erasure has been made from the middle of the line to the end of the line, in these stenographic characters, can you recall now what has been erased, and what appeared here before the erasure?
A. I cannot recall the words, but it was a description of thirst condition. I wrote "Asked for water," and "again and again for water." "The thirst is very extensive," or something like that was written down there too.
Q. Now, doctor you have had the opportunity to think over during the course of last evening your examination yesterday, and you have told this Tribunal that these stenographic notes were altered by yourself here in Nurnberg; are you prepared to toll this Tribunal now just why it became necessary for you to alter these stenographic notes?
A. I ask permission to be allowed to make the following explanation. I changed those notes before these sheets were handed in, that is after they had been returned from Prof. Volhard. I made some changes in these stenographic notes only, and then I told my defense counsel, whom I had not informed about this, as I want to state expressly, we want to withdraw the weight chart.
I was immediately sorry, because I had changed something. I originally had the intention to submit the weight charts of these persons, because I believe from the changed weights alone one can see on the whole how this experiment developed. And then, when I had committed this thoughtless action, immediately my conscience bothered me, and I told my defense counsel I shall not submit this; but I want to state that I did not make any changes in the rest of the report on the course of the experiments; that in the urine amounts, as well as in the temperatures, and expecially in the case of the weights, they are definitely the original values as also in the case of the blood pressure,----- so in what you see here on the front pages of the chart nothing has been changed, since these charts arrived here.
Q. Could you tell us just what was your reason for changing some of the stenographic notes?
A. Because the description as it was hero is a description, which on a person who does not know a condition of thirst, leaves an impression which perhaps is stronger than the actual condition was.
Q. Do you have anything further to say about those alterations, Doctor? You may at this time explain to the Tribunal anything else in connection with those alterations if you wish?
A. Well, I want to state again that I am very sorry that I did it. I, as I said, I only had the intention to submit the charts to show the weights and not because of the other results of the medical examinations, because I am of the opinion that from the weight charts one can recognize without doubt, first, how much weight the experimental subject lost, secondly, one sees from them unequivocally on which days water was drank in between, and thirdly one can see clearly from them that immediately after the conclusion of the experiment in the case of all the experimental subjects there was a gain in weight, and fourthly, one sees that when the persons were discharged in most cases they had again reached their original weight.
BY JUDGE SEBERING:
Q. Well, Doctor, how do you explain the fact that names have been erased from many of these charts?
A. This erasing of the names must have been done before. I did not do that here. On the front pages of these charts I did not change anything here. It is possible that this happened already in Dachau. I can't tell you that. It is possible that later on I erased them too. I did not erase them here.