a. Introduction
The defendants Genzken, Gebhardt, Mrugowsky, and Poppendick were charged
with special responsibility for and participation in criminal conduct
involving experiments with poison (par. 6 (K) of the indictment). Only
the defendant Mrugowsky was convicted on this charge.
The prosecution’s summation of the evidence on the experiments with
poison is contained in its closing brief against the defendant
Mrugowsky. An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 631 to
632. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the defense on these
experiments has been selected from the final plea for the defendant
Mrugowsky. It appears below on pages 633 to 634. This argumentation is
followed by selections from the evidence on pages 634 to 639.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the Prosecution
_EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY_
* * * * *
_Poison Experiments_
Poison experiments were carried out in the Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen
concentration camps by order of the defendant Mrugowsky (_Tr. pp.
1183-6_). The first series of the experiments was carried out in
December 1943 in order to determine the fatal dosage of poisons of the
alkaloid group. These experiments were requested by the SS judge,
Morgen, who investigated the criminal case against Koch, camp commander
of Buchenwald, and the defendant Hoven. Hoven was suspected of having
killed a witness against Koch and himself by means of poison. Four
Russian prisoners of war were experimented upon by Ding. The poison was
administered to the experimental subjects in their food without their
knowledge. All four survived, but were strangled in a crematorium of the
concentration camp in order that autopsies could be performed. (_Tr. pp.
1183-6_; _NO-265, Pros. Ex. 287_.) Since Ding was subordinated to
Mrugowsky, this experiment could not have been performed by Ding without
Mrugowsky’s approval.
On 11 September 1944 Mrugowsky and Ding carried out an experiment with
aconitine nitrate projectiles in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp.
The projectiles were filled with crystallized poison and five
experimental subjects were shot in the upper part of the left thigh with
these projectiles. In two cases, no effect of the poison could be
observed. In the other three cases, the suffering of the experimental
subjects was terrible. All three died after approximately two hours of
agony. The poison bullets used in the experiments were allegedly of
Russian origin. (_NO-201, Pros. Ex. 290._)
The experimental subjects were Russian prisoners of war. (_Tr. p. 1186_;
_see also Kogon’s testimony in Case 4_.[67]) Mrugowsky admitted his
participation in these experiments. He defended himself on the ground
that he was the legally appointed executioner in this case. Assuming the
truth of this absurd statement, it cannot be held legal to torture to
death prisoners of war even if they had been validly sentenced to death.
On 26 October 1944 still another poison experiment was carried out by
Ding in Buchenwald. The entry in the Ding diary for that date states:
“Special experiment on 6 persons according to instructions of SS
Oberfuehrer Lecturer Dr. Mrugowsky and RKPA. (Report on this orally.)”
Kogon testified that Ding told him the Russian prisoners of war used in
the experiments died in a short time. They were later dissected and
burned. Ding reported to Mrugowsky orally. These experiments were
connected with the poison bullet experiments in the Sachsenhausen
concentration camp. (_Tr. pp. 1185-1186._)
* * * * *
c. Selection from the Argumentation of the Defense
_EXTRACT FROM THE FINAL PLEA FOR DEFENDANT
MRUGOWSKY_[68]
* * * * *
In respect to the poison experiments, I proved in my written statement
that Ding’s assertion that Mrugowsky had ordered him to be present at a
euthanasia killing by phenol is not correct. Professor Killian, who
according to Ding’s statement, was present when the order was given,
said that this statement of Ding’s was incorrect. It showed that the
examination of the question of whether the noxious effect of serums
containing phenol can be proved by the comparative use of serums with
and without phenol, and also a series of experiments with serums
containing phenol was never carried out.
The experiments with pervitin were carried out on the initiative of Dr.
Morgen and Dr. Wehner, according to the Ding diary. I proved that no
harm was caused to the health of the experimental subjects by these
experiments. The experiments were performed with pervitin which can be
obtained in any chemist’s shop without a prescription and consequently
is not a poison. In the experiments it was used together with a narcotic
because the authority wanted to determine whether, as a result of this
treatment, the effect was increased one way or the other. The only
effect was that the experimental subjects fell into a disturbed sleep
for up to 20 hours. This pervitin experiment was not ordered by
Mrugowsky; he did not participate therein in any way, and the
prosecution did not even contend that he knew of it. No responsibility
under criminal law may be deduced against him from this experiment.
With regard to the special experiment on 6 persons mentioned in Ding’s
diary, it is again solely the witness Kogon who gave details. In my
closing brief I pointed out that, in this case too, Kogon gave
contradictory testimony in the Pohl trial[69] and the doctors’ trial
about the origin of this experiment. Thus his evidence has no probative
value. Moreover, Kogon’s description of this experiment, except for the
sealing and the burning of the prescription, is only based on Ding’s
statements. In respect to this special experiment, there is no evidence
whatsoever to show the type of poison used, the manner in which the
special experiment was performed, and the aim of the experiment. After
the collapse, Ding told the defendant Sievers that towards the end of
1944 in Buchenwald he had filled 80 phials with prussic acid in order to
commit suicide, but he unfortunately took none of them with him.
No one can prove whether Ding carried out his “special experiment” with
these prussic acid capsules because Ding left no report about the course
of the special experiment.
The Ding diary states that the experiment was performed by order of
Mrugowsky and the Reich Criminal Police Office. Because the diary has
such little probative value, the truth of this contention cannot be
proved by this document alone. No other evidence has been submitted to
show that Ding poisoned 6 prisoners by order of Mrugowsky. Therefore
there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Mrugowsky ordered this
experiment or that he even knew about it.
The prosecution further indicted Mrugowsky because of an execution
performed at Sachsenhausen in which ten bandits sentenced to death were
executed with bullets poisoned with aconitine. I have proved that
Mrugowsky attended this execution only as the usual doctor present at an
execution. I further demonstrated that the execution took place because,
in an attempt on the life of a high-ranking civil servant in the General
Government, Russian revolver ammunition had been used in which hollow
bullets had been filled with aconitine poison. This use of poisoned
Russian bullets, and Henderson’s book which described the preparation
for the use of poisoned bullets in the First World War, had increased
the concern that poisoned bullets would shortly be used at the front. I
proved that poisoned ammunition was used at the execution to determine
whether pure aconitine or a poison mixture had been used in the bullets,
and how much time would be available in case of need to administer
antidotes.
I proved that all executions in the concentration camps were ordered by
the Reich Criminal Police Office, and that the presence of a doctor at
such executions was prescribed. The execution at Sachsenhausen was
ordered by the Reich Criminal Police Office. No charge under criminal
law can be deduced against Mrugowsky from his attendance as a doctor at
the execution. I have explained this in detail in my closing brief.
* * * * *
d. Evidence
_Prosecution Documents_
Pros. Ex.
Doc. No. No. Description of Document Page
NO-201 290 Report from Mrugowsky to the Criminological 635
Institute, 12 September 1944, concerning
experiments with aconitine nitrate
projectiles.
_Testimony_