JAN GRABCZYŃSKI

Ninth day of the hearing. 20 March 1947

The witness stated the following personal data: Jan Grabczyński, 29 years old, doctor of medicine, married, Roman Catholic, no relationship to the parties.

Presiding judge: What are parties’ motions regarding the procedure of questioning of the witness?

Prosecutor Siewierski: [We] release [the witness] from the oath.

Defense Attorney Umbreit: [We] release [the witness] from the oath.

Presiding judge: In agreement with the parties, the Tribunal has resolved to hear the witness without an oath. May the witness tell us about the circumstances of getting into the camp, what the witness was doing there and what the witness has to say based on his own experience and observations in regard to defendant Höß’s case.

Witness: In November 1942 I was arrested in Sandomierz due to being suspected of providing medical assistance to the partisans and accused of having Jewish origins. I was brought to Auschwitz camp in December 1942. From day two, initially as a patient, then as a nurse, and later as doctor, I worked at block 21., which was the surgical block. In the beginning I worked as a doctor in the upper level of the block, which was a purulent ward, then from 1942 I was the head doctor of the surgical block until April 1944. In April 1944, I was released from the camp, on the provision of being at the Standortarzt ’s disposal. They were preparing a post for me in the SS hospital that was under development. In August 1944, when they were close to finishing the hospital, I escaped and hid near Kraków.

As regards defendant Höß, I would like to bring up one of the facts related to the responsibility for the so-called selections which were carried out among the patients in the camp. As we know, Höß left his post as the camp commandant in October 1943 and was replaced by Liebehenschel. Selection was carried out in a cruel manner in the first days of October by the local Standortarzt Wirtz. The patients selected for gassing were gathered into one block. We were incredibly surprised when those patients returned to their own block two days later. People who had been present at Wirtz’s meeting with the then commandant Liebehenschel said that he didn’t want to sign off on that list of people who were supposed to be gassed. Wirtz didn’t want to take responsibility for it either and the patients were let go. Selections were not carried out from that moment on until my release. I don’t know what happened later.

When I arrived at the block where I worked, there were no means to perform any kind of surgical work at all. There were around 800 ill squeezed into the relatively small space of my half of the block. The ones requiring surgical treatment, who couldn’t move under their own strength, had to hoist themselves onto the one- or two-level beds. Carrying them down from these beds and dressing their wounds was extremely difficult. Hygienic conditions were very poor. Only the Reichsdeutschers, who had a separate ward, could lie down in individual narrow beds, Aryans had to lie in twos, and Jews in threes. Taking into account that these were severely ill people with limb diseases, sharing the bed was a torment for them. Food in the hospital, as it is generally known, was even worse than in the camp because the sick were disposed of the so-called Zulages. This fact limited the natural body resistance to minimum. The slightest cut led to severe purulence, so huge that I as a surgeon with 15 years of experience prior to being imprisoned had never had a chance to see. The sick, often unconscious, fell off the top beds. I myself helped around 18 patients who suffered from fractions of the arm or collarbone as a result of falling from a bunk bed, in addition to their main ailment.

The conditions in the ward were below any criticism, whereas the operation room was well equipped, both in terms of instruments and dressing materials. I explained to myself that the SS doctors were ordered to go through surgeon training. The goal was for every one of them to be able perform some surgical interventions, such as amputations and appendix or hernia operations. That’s how I explained it to myself as to why the operation room had decent apparatus. The doctors who were training there were Entress, Lucas, Rhode, Thiele [Thilo?], Fischer, König. They did not care about the subjects at all, and it was striking – apart from any humane perspective – that Entress could operate a patient one day, and during the three following days put the same person to death by sending them to the gas chamber or injecting phenol. The level of education of these German doctors, their knowledge, was extremely low. On the one hand it was horrible, but on the other it suited us, because we could give a positive diagnosis during selection and save some of the sick from death by gassing or phenol injection.

When it comes to medical supplies at the surgical ward, they were really scarce. The supplies we were getting were a blasphemy to any kind of medical knowledge. We would get a dozen sulfonamide pills for 600–800 ill. We resorted to whatever the prisoners working in the SS pharmacy or in the so-called Canada brought us. This was thanks to a great effort by our colleagues who worked there. These are: Wesołowski, Toliński, Prof. Olbrycht, Sikorski, Szewczyk. The amount of sedatives and anesthetics was horribly scarce. The object of my constant effort was to collect the right amount of ethyl or ethyl chloride so that we could use it on the patients who required surgery. And I may say that we were successful. There were no patients who were operated on without the use of these substances.

At the surgical ward, there was a profound lack of dressing supplies like splints or any splinting tools necessary to treat fractured bones, which were often the case due to the work performed by the prisoners. We had to resort to improvised tools prepared for us either in the camp’s carpentry workshop or at the ironworks. Of course, these were made illegally, outside the camp’s orders. That’s the way we had to organize aid for our fellow prisoners.

What kind of operations were performed? The largest amount were cases of phlegmon, which were caused by the fact that the body’s immune system was at a minimum, such that any injury caused inflammation. It accounted for about 80 percent of the sick who went through block 21. Then there were hernias caused by the exhaustion of the body, emaciation, that is a complete drop in body fat. Then there was a certain amount of the acute cases that had to happen with 20,000 prisoners amassed in Auschwitz. Next there were operations done either at the orders of the Gestapo or the camp authorities, such as sterilization or castration. These were interventions ruled by the court in the case of the so-called Mischings, where it was about sterilization, or in cases of pederasts who would be castrated. In addition, the doctor-pilot Schumann, who had already been known for certain reasons, performed the castration of people who were irradiated with X-rays.

The patients brought by the Political Department were another story. Most of them were partisans or paratroopers caught in Silesia, to whom the political unit displayed great solicitude, wishing to keep them alive for testimony. In this case, enormous pressure was put on me or other doctors in the surgical ward, demanding that these people be kept alive.

The most tragic experience seen by a doctor was the so-called selection, which was carried out in the surgical ward as well as in other wards. Its objective was to examine all patients. It was a superficial assessment of the patient’s condition – at one glance, with one gesture of the hand, he was sentenced to death. Until March 1943, the selections were carried out in Auschwitz among all prisoners except the Reichsdeutschers. From March 1943 they were carried out only among Jews. During my stay, the selections ended with the arrival of commandant Liebehenschel.

Presiding judge: Does the witness have anything else to say?

Witness: Nothing else comes to my mind right now.

Expert Kowalski: Were there any women among the observation subjects present at surgical ward?

Witness: Acute care patients were brought from Birkenau, suffering from appendicitis, hernia, gallbladder inflammation.

Expert Kowalski: How about surgical interventions aiming to sterilize? Were those performed?

Witness: Yes, they were. Such operations were usually conducted at block 10.

Expert Kowalski: And when it comes to testicle amputation, were both testicles removed, or just one?

Witness: This was done at Schumann’s order, whom I have mentioned. There were cases of orchidectomy, that is the removal of one testicle, and there were a few cases of prisoners who were entirely castrated.

Expert Kowalski: What was those people’s fate after undergoing the operation?

Witness: The patient would return to the camp.

Expert Kowalski: Where were the removed testicles thrown away?

Witness: Schumann put that material in jars with preservative fluid, probably a formalin solution, packed into multiple boxes, and sent off by him personally.

Expert Kowalski: Were there Gypsy children suffering from the so-called water cancer at the surgical ward?

Witness: I saw three such children. These children were not staying in surgical ward, but at block 28 or were sent back to the Gypsy camp.

Presiding judge: The witness has mentioned a chief block doctor. What kind of function was that?

Witness: Each block had a doctor who reported to the main doctor for all medical procedures performed at the block.

Presiding judge: Were these prisoner doctors, weren’t there any German doctors?

Witness: The head of the whole camp hospital was the Lagerarzt.

Presiding judge: How many blocks were subject to the Lagerarzt?

Witness: Initially three. In summer 1943 the hospital was expanded to five blocks.

Presiding judge: What was the number of patients more or less?

Witness: The number varied depending on the circumstances. In the winter it increased, because there were numerous frostbite cases. But generally, the number of patients ranged from 1,800 to 4,500.

Presiding judge: And there was one German doctor for that number of people?

Witness: Yes.

Presiding judge: And how many prisoner doctors were there?

Witness: Initially, before I came to the camp, prisoners could not be employed in the hospital. The medical functions were performed by people who had nothing to do with medicine. Later, however, the Lagerältester, a “green” German named Bock allowed several Poles to work at the hospital. Nevertheless, in the case of some committee inspection or visit of the camp authorities they had to hide. They hid in the attic of block 21., covered with rags. They left when the committee was gone.

Presiding judge: How was the admission to the hospital administered?

Witness: I’m talking about the time of my stay. The sick would gather in the camp alley in front of block 28 at around 5 a.m. Past 6 a.m. they would enter the admissions room, which was located in block 28. There they would be examined by a doctor. They were divided into two groups: those who were to be admitted into hospital, and those who would return to their kommando after having their wound dressed or receiving medication. The sick that were admitted into hospital would wait in the so-called Waschraum, naked. At around 10 a.m. the German Lagerarzt would come by and he was the one to make the final decision about admission. After the admission, done at a glance, a selection would be sometimes carried out. One glance of the Lagerarzt decided whether the sick would be admitted into the hospital, put to death with a phenol injection, or sent away to be gassed in a larger group. Tragic scenes unfolded in the camp alley near block 28, dragging prisoners out of the mass waiting in the line. This was done by the German kapos who didn’t want the people from their kommando to go to the hospital, because they needed hands to work. They would beat them up and wouldn’t let them into hospital.

Presiding judge: How many patients came on an average day in the section where the witness worked?

Witness: There were days when up to 40 would come.

Presiding judge: How many percent would be admitted into hospital?

Witness: I meant that 40 would be admitted into my block.

Presiding judge: I’m asking what was the general number of patients that reported in to get admitted?

Witness: Around 180–200.

Presiding judge: So only one fourth or one fifth could hope to actually get admitted?

Witness: Maximum.

Presiding judge: The ones who wanted to be admitted weren’t ill?

Witness: They were ill, but the condition for admission to the hospital was a serious, advanced disease. There was no preventive admission to treat the lighter cases. Personally, I had a nurse named Skibiński, a medical student who went through typhoid fever in outpatient care because he wasn’t admitted into the hospital. I also knew a doctor who had gone through typhoid while working in the camp before he started working in the hospital. He had gone through typhoid and pneumonia there, and despite these illnesses he wasn’t admitted into hospital.

Presiding judge: Why, what were the reasons?

Witness: He was told he wasn’t sick.

Presiding judge: Didn’t he have a fever, or what were the criteria?

Witness: I believe it was a result of the policy of extermination.

Presiding judge: Were the sick examined, or were the decisions made based purely on appearance?

Witness: Purely on appearance.

Presiding judge: Did the prisoner doctor have any influence on admitting the sick into hospital?

Witness: He didn’t have any influence, it depended entirely on the camp’s doctor, he was the only one with the right to decide. Later, when the hospital was expanded, when the policy of protecting the workforce was applied, he had a greater impact on the admission, it was at that time when war industry like Dawu and Praga Halle began, where the workers were working.

Presiding judge: How was it explained?

Witness: Because they needed people.

Presiding judge: How did the witness prove that a specific prisoner should be admitted?

Witness: I wasn’t the admissions doctor. The Krankenbau was expanded. There were more beds. The Lagerarzt was often interested in the kommando the prisoner was from.

Presiding judge: Was there a certain period of time during which the patient was allowed to stay in the hospital?

Witness: As the selection was carried out more or less every two or four weeks, the Lagerarzt examined the patients, looked into temperature cards. These cards were of more or less this size (the witness demonstrates) for the period of two weeks. If they were longer, they consisted of three cards, and such patients were very suspect and taken to the gas chamber.

Presiding judge: Was a practice developed that one should not be in hospital for a long period?

Witness: In reality yes, they thought that a sick person shouldn’t remain in the hospital for longer than four weeks.

Presiding judge: The witness mentioned that Reichsdeutschers had separate beds, and other prisoners were put on bunks?

Witness: Reichsdeutschers had a separate room at block 21.

Presiding judge: Other prisoners were crowded?

Witness: As I said, Aryans lied in twos, and Jews even in threes on each bed.

Presiding judge: What were the hygienic conditions?

Witness: It will be enough if I say that the sick would be woken up at 4.00. Because initially there was no bathing apparatus at our block, all the walking patients, those shadows of people, were hustled through the courtyard at 5.30 a.m., no matter what season, to the Waschraum they washed themselves and returned directly after.

Presiding judge: Even when a patient had a temperature of 40 degrees?

Witness: Generally yes, but the Pflegers – nurses – would leave them in beds, thus exposing themselves.

Presiding judge: What did the beds look like, were they hospital beds?

Witness: They were NS-bette, 55 cm wide, with three levels, the first low above the ground, somewhere around 70 cm, then the second and the third.

Presiding judge: Does this mean that the hospital was no different from the blocks?

Witness: In terms of beds there was no difference at all.

Presiding judge: What was the difference then, why was it named a hospital after all?

Witness: Because the sick could spend all day in bed.

Presiding judge: Just this. And what were the bed sheets?

Witness: The same as in the whole camp, that is worn out pallets filled with wood shavings, with no pillow, with blankets dirty from pus, blood and infested with lice.

Presiding judge: When admitted to wards, were the patients arranged accordingly to their illness, or at random?

Witness: We needed to follow the rulings of the Lagerarzt who didn’t allow mixing non- Aryans with Aryans and who paid attention to separating Reichsdeutschers from other nationalities. Within these three groups – Jews, Aryans, and Germans – we would arrange the patients according to the severity of the disease, dividing them into Stubes, assigning a greater number of Pflegers to the most severely ill.

Presiding judge: Could there be cases when a patient ill with peritonitis would be situated next to a patient with typhus?

Witness: The ward for infectious patients was separated at block 20. The infectious patients couldn’t stay in my block under my personal responsibility. I remember a pretty big typhus epidemic broke out in winter 1943 and I had to transfer a couple of patients. I went through a lot of trouble then.

Presiding judge: Were those sick with Durchfall separated?

Witness: Yes, at block 20. Later, when block 19 was added, half of it was intended for those with Durchfall. Block 28 was the internal diseases ward as well as throat, ear, and larynx illnesses. Block 20 was the surgical ward, 19 – infectious, 18 – Durchfall, 9 – convalescents.

The food at the hospital was the same as in the camp, with no extras for the hardworking, as it was believed that the sick couldn’t get the Zulag intended for the hardworking as they were not working. In the hospital in the morning, a patient would be given a cup of herbal decoction called a tea, for dinner he would get a bowl of soup and potatoes if there were any, a decoction of herbs for the evening and a varying amount of bread which was a quarter of a loaf of bread.

There was also Dietkuche in the hospital, which would issue a certain amount of daily food allowance. They were reserved for the Reichsdeutschers and they would get all of it almost exclusively. A very small share could be assigned to other patients. Initially there was a rule that the sick Jews could not get the allowance. The food was the same regardless of the illness. I would get 20 or 25 dietary portions for block 21. The condition of the patient didn’t change the allowance.

We obtained the food allowance and medicines from the SS pharmacy. There were also other options, as the workers in that pharmacy were prisoners, of course under the supervision of an SS doctor. They would steal the medicines for their fellow prisoners. When the Jewish transports which went directly to the gas chambers started arriving, Germans collected medicines as there were doctors within the transports who brought large amounts of them. All these things were piled up on the side on the platform, while the people went to the gas chamber. Those items were divided into two piles: medicine and food supplies on one, clothes on the other. Prisoners working in “Canada” would segregate the medicines. They were basically going through to the SS pharmacy where they would be shared among the SS men and their families who were camp guards. The amounts were really huge. When I was already outside, I had a chance to see a basement filled with insulin of different brands – Dutch, Hungarian – brought in by the Jews.

There was also the prisoner’s pharmacy, which would get official rations from the SS pharmacy. What amounts were spent on the entire Krankenblock I cannot say. I know that in the daily allocation for the 600–800 patients I had there were 30 tablets of sulfonamides, while the minimum daily dose was six tablets. There was no way for official treatment.

If somebody got better, it was largely thanks to the inmates who worked in Canada or the SS pharmacy and who provided these drugs.

Presiding judge: The witness mentioned an operating room that was seemingly well equipped. The witness has said it was because the German doctors were undergoing surgical training there. Were they qualified doctors or students?

Witness: Except for König, they were qualified doctors. They weren’t surgeons. There was one gynecologist. They had orders to perform the most primitive operations in isolated outposts. First they observed, then assisted, and finally amputated limbs, performed appendix and hernia surgeries. Dr. Entress stood out, who was [the head?] doctor for quite a long time. He was a doctor who obtained his diploma in 1939 in Poznań, and in 1942, when I came, he conducted the most difficult surgical operations, like stomach resections, gallstone operations, some of the most difficult medical procedures. He acquired such a specialization in two years, whereas normally it would take him minimum 6 years outside prison.

Presiding judge: Did the medical condition always justify the surgery?

Witness: The condition of some patients was consistent with the medical indications, but I know of an accident when Entress, who didn’t know how to close intestinal fistula – the disease causes the intestinal mucous membranes to coalesce with the skin and the fistula requires closing – as he hadn’t had the right patient; he sewed the intestinal loops together with skin, and then performed a puncture. The surgery was carried out for the sake of his own learning. Operations of this kind are known, but he didn’t know how to perform them.

Were any other unjustified surgeries done? I don’t know. I only know this one case. There were 4–6 operations every day.

Presiding judge: Were there operations unjustified by the medical condition?

Witness: However they wanted. The operation techniques were also unrestricted; it was rather a lack of technique or surgical experience.

Presiding judge: Under different conditions, would that patient be kept alive?

Witness: Surely.

Presiding judge: Were prisoner doctors used for assistance during these operations by the German doctors?

Witness: Yes. They had to assist.

Presiding judge: What did it look like?

Witness: It was a regular surgical assistance.

Presiding judge: Would a doctor prisoner have had any influence on the surgeon had he seen that it wasn’t being performed in line with surgical principles?

Witness: It depends. Entress could not be influenced in any way, he just couldn’t be persuaded. Others, like Fischer, König, or Rhode, could be influenced and I have to admit that for example Fischer would never start an operation that he couldn’t perform, that he hadn’t studied carefully or hadn’t observed a doctor prisoner perform it.

Presiding judge: Did it occur that one of the German doctors would decide to put the patient to death by phenol injection or gas during a selection after having conducted a surgery on him?

Witness: This happened more than once. Many times, Entress selected the patients he had operated on a couple of days after the surgery, that is in the period when he still couldn’t be sure whether the operation was successful or not. This means he wasn’t even curious to see the result of the operation. Except for the surgical techniques, the patients were of no interest to him. He also didn’t care about them regarding the diet required after the operation, or further treatment steps such as putting on a cast when it came to limb surgeries.

Presiding judge: The witness mentioned phenol injections. What does the witness know about that matter?

Witness: I know there had been attempts by a former doctor who worked before I came, named Schwele, to find the best substance for killing the sick. First it was done with injections of evipan, but it was too costly and worked too slowly. Then, by trying various chemicals, they came to phenol. Initially, they gave it intravenously, but the effect was too slow, so they developed a method of killing by intracardiac injection.

Presiding judge: Were the sick taken away from the hospital block to get the injection only?

Witness: If there was a small number of sick selected at admission to block 28., they would kill them with an injection. But the so-called selection usually concerned a larger number of patients. For example, during the first selection after I arrived, around 150 people were selected from my block. These great numbers were murdered by gassing. Smaller groups were killed by phenol injection. The injections were given by SDG as well as SS men who were assigned to hospital blocks and who were paid for that.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Can you explain the matter of selection in more detail? I mean, was there a general rule that every patient who would have to stay in the rewir for longer than four weeks would be subject to selection?

Witness: That was the principle, but there were exceptions. If the patient looked well, he might have stayed. After all, it became common for us to haggle over patients – we would say that the prognosis for the patient was good, that they would get better in a couple of days, or for example I would tell König that a certain patient was interesting to me from a scientific perspective – even though it was just regular phlegmon – and he would often give up on the prisoner’s death sentence.

Prosecutor Siewierski: What was König’s function? Wasn’t he a doctor?

Witness: He was a graduate.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Did the patients who were selected show any prospects of recovery?

Witness: Definitely yes. Even in the conditions in the camp. If they had been kept in the Revier for two or three weeks, the vast majority of these patients, even in the camp hospital conditions, could have survived and even returned to work.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Didn’t you have the opportunity to speak humanly with the German doctors, to find out what a German doctor’s perspective on all this was?

Witness: Any conversations between prisoners and the German doctors were out of the question, especially about their professional activity in the camp. The best chances to talk that I had were strictly professional conversations, that is about the operation, the surgical procedure. But expanding them to any other topic was absolutely impossible. There was an attitude of rulers towards dust.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Did the selection go on until the end, or were there any changes?

Witness: Until March 1943, everybody was subject to selection apart from Reichsdeutschers, until October or November 1943 only Jews were selected, and when Liebehenschel became the commandant, there were no selections at all until my release, that is April 1944, even among Jews. As my colleagues who I meet now tell me, the selections were later brought back.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Are you aware of this type of selection, especially in earlier years, when some kind of test was used, such as jumping over a ditch or similar things?

Witness: Such tests were never used in the hospital block.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Was the selection based on any kind of reliable medical examination?

Witness: Absolutely not. The selection looked like this: the Lagerarzt stood at the end of the hall, SGDs stood next to him, while all the sick who were able to walk walked in front of them with temperature records in their hands, naked. The selection of several dozen patients took no longer than 20–30 minutes. It consisted of the sick walking by and the Lagerarzt taking a glance at them.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Has any trick been used by you, prison doctors, to remove patients from the hospital in fear of selection?

Witness: Yes, if we found out about the selection on time – it was usually secret. But if we found out for example the previous day, we would try to release as many patients as possible. It was often difficult, because the sick didn’t understand it was being done in their interest and didn’t want to return to the camp.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Was Durchfall itself enough to be admitted into hospital, or were there more diseases required?

Witness: The initial stage of Durchfall wasn’t that hard. Later the sick couldn’t move, and they had to be admitted. These were the patients who were just dried out. With a stool frequency of 30–40 times day, the body of a subject was totally dehydrated.

Prosecutor Siewierski: Was Durchfall a recurring disease, that is could a patient suffer from it more than once?

Witness: Yes. It wasn’t an infectious disease, but it was caused by a deficiency of proteins, minerals and water in the body due to hunger.

Prosecutor Siewierski: It wasn’t an infectious disease?

Witness: No, a lot of the research done by my colleagues within the camp showed an absolute lack of bacterial component in the vast majority of cases. The conclusion was to assume a metabolic malfunction.

Prosecutor Cyprian: Could the witness say whether Durchfall had been known previously, or is it known exclusively from the camps?

Witness: Difficult to say. I haven’t encountered it before, however.

Prosecutor Cyprian: And was the name Durchfall previously known?

Witness: No.

Prosecutor Cyprian: Does that mean that this condition had not been observed before?

Witness: I’m a surgeon, I haven’t studied infectious diseases, so I cannot answer this question precisely. I personally have not encountered it before.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: I have a question for the witness. The witness has spoken about operations carried out by young German doctors or those who hadn’t obtained their qualifications yet.

Witness: By one graduate, the rest were doctors.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: The witness mentioned an incident when an operation was performed, and several days later the subject was sent to death. How does the witness understand it, why was it done?

Witness: There was a selection carried out and the patient was picked, like many others.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: So this shouldn’t be seen as an attempt to hide the operation?

Witness: No.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: It was just lack of interest in the patient?

Witness: Yes.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: Regarding sterilization and possibly castration. First of all, what was the difference between the two, and secondly, how were they performed, was it under anesthesia and did the Polish doctors perform the surgery?

Witness: Sterilization consisted of cutting the spermatic cord. Castration was a complete removal of the testicles.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: Was it done by Polish doctors?

Witness: These operations, in principle, if they were performed based on the Gestapo verdict, should have been done by German doctors, because they were, so to speak, verdict operations. When Entress was around, he had a specific kind of operational technique that he used for this, and usually performed the operations himself. Later, when convictions of this kind came, because some of the doctors couldn’t perform such an operation, they would order a prisoner doctor to perform them in their presence.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: Was it always done under anesthetic?

Witness: Always with spinal anesthesia.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: Even the verdict ones?

Witness: Yes. They were done in aseptic conditions.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: When it comes to the operations by Schumann, did the mutilated person know they were an experimental guinea pig?

Witness: They did. Before that they would all be irradiated with X-rays.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: In such a way that they were aware?

Witness: Yes.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: Was the witness present when the injections were given, either evipan or phenol?

Witness: No.

Defense Attorney Ostaszewski: I have no more questions.

Presiding judge: The witness is released.

I call a 10-minute recess.