During the presentation of evidence, only the witness Dr. Maczka maintained that tetanus was actually used in one individual case. This witness did not make her own observations of the case but drew conclusions based exclusively on the pathological picture presented by one of the experimental subjects according to her statements. In view of the fact that even according to the testimony of this witness tetanus bacilli were employed only in one individual case, the assertion of this witness can hardly be taken as a true representation of the facts, for if it had really been the intention of the defendant Gebhardt to determine the effect of sulfanilamides on tetanus too, one experimental subject would certainly not have been sufficient, and more experiments would have been necessary before a final decision regarding this question could possibly have been made.
The third group consisted of 24 experimental subjects who were not treated with any sort of contagion—unlike the procedure applied to the second group—but only had part of the muscle ligatured. The defendants Gebhardt and Fischer have given detailed evidence regarding these new experimental arrangements, how they originated, what considerations had to be regarded, and what part was played by SS Reich Physician Dr. Grawitz. With regard to these details I refer to the testimony of the defendants in the witness box.
The experimental subjects were treated with sulfanilamides as described by the defendants in the witness box. A few persons were not treated with sulfanilamides but were used as control subjects. But that did not mean that these persons were not treated at all. As the evidence has proved, all experimental subjects were treated, namely by surgical measures if the sulfanilamides did not prove effective against the inflammation. For this reason too the experimental subjects to whom sulfanilamides were applied, and where the inflammation did not pass away by itself, were given direct surgical treatment under observance of the generally recognized principles of surgery, particularly as developed in Germany by Gebhardt’s teacher Professor Dr. Lexer. This direct surgical treatment resulted in the scars which the court has seen on the experimental subjects questioned as witnesses. As explained by Professor Dr. Alexander, the expert produced by the prosecution, these scars are the result not of the bacteriological infection but of the operations performed in order to eliminate this infection. In the prosecution case, four experimental subjects were called to give evidence. In addition, the prosecution submitted a series of affidavits given by other persons used as experimental subjects. The statements of the four witnesses questioned in court coincide largely with the testimony given by the defendants Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer themselves in the witness box. For this reason alone it appears expedient and sufficient for the pronouncement of a just sentence and for the establishment of the true facts to base the sentence exclusively on the testimony of these four witnesses together with the statements of the defendants themselves. This is not only in accordance with the principle of direct and oral proceedings in court prevailing in any modern criminal procedure and which should not be departed from without urgent reason, but also such handling of the case seems suitable because the statements of the four witnesses are identical essentially so that they themselves, together with the statements given by the defendants, can be regarded as a safe basis for a finding—apart from one point which I shall go into later. In addition, the affidavits submitted by the prosecution not only differ in essential points from the statements made by the witnesses in court, but are inconsistent and contradictory in themselves as well. This is shown, above all, by the fact that in several of these affidavits contentions are quite obviously made which are not based on personal and factual observation, but have become known to these witnesses by hearsay. The affidavits, moreover, fail to represent the circumstances in clear chronological order, which makes the whole matter all the more doubtful, as it was proved by the evidence that in the Ravensbrueck camp experiments were obviously also performed by other physicians with whom the defendant in this case had no connection.
Considerable doubts also exist regarding the statements made by the witness Dr. Maczka. The prosecution has submitted two affidavits given by this witness as part of its evidence. When questioned in court, this witness could not maintain the most incriminating contentions which appeared in the two affidavits. Under these circumstances, the court has to consider whether it regards the statements of this witness as sufficiently reliable to enter into the judgment. I would answer this question in the negative, not only because she had to revoke the most essential points of her previous affidavits, but because a large part of her testimony was based not on her own observations, but either on information obtained from other prisoners or on conclusions drawn by her.
d. Evidence
| Prosecution Documents | |||
| Doc. No. | Pros. Ex. No. | Description of Document | Page |
| NO-228 | 206 | Affidavit of defendant Fischer, 19 November 1946, concerning sulfanilamide experiments conducted in the concentration camp Ravensbrueck. | [371] |
| NO-472 | 234 | Affidavit of the defendant Fischer, 21 October 1946, supplementing his affidavit concerning sulfanilamide experiments. | [376] |
| NO-1080 A, E, F | 219 A, E, F | Exposures of the witness Maria Kusmierczuk who underwent sulfanilamide and bone experiments while an inmate of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (See Selections from Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution.) | [901] |
| NO-1082 A, C | 214 A, C | Exposures of the witness Jadwiga Dzido who underwent sulfanilamide and bone experiments while an inmate of the Ravensbrueck concentration camp. (See Selections from Photographic Evidence of the Prosecution.) | [903] |
| Defense Documents | |||
| Doc. No. | Def. Ex. No. | Description of Document | |
| Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 21 | Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 20 | Extract from affidavit of Dr. Karl Friedrich Brunner, 14 March 1947. | [377] |
| Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 1 | Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 6 | Extract from report on the First Conference East of Consulting Specialists on 18 and 19 May 1942 at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin. | [377] |
| Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser 3 | Gebhardt, Fischer, Oberheuser Ex. 10 | Extracts from report on the Third Conference East of Consulting Specialists on 24 to 26 May 1943 at the Military Medical Academy, Berlin. | [378] |
| Testimony | |||
| Extracts from the testimony of prosecution witness Jadwiga Dzido | [381] | ||
| Extracts from the testimony of the prosecution expert witness Dr. Leo Alexander | [386] | ||
| Extracts from the testimony of defendant Gebhardt | [388] | ||
PARTIAL TRANSLATION OF DOCUMENT NO-228
PROSECUTION EXHIBIT 206