| . |
VII. EXTRACTS FROM ARGUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE
OF PROSECUTION AND DEFENSE
A. Medical Experiments
I. HIGH-ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS
a. Introduction
The defendants Karl Brandt, Handloser, Schroeder,
Gebhardt Rudolf Brandt, Mrugowsky, Poppendick, Sievers, Ruff, Romberg,
Becker-Freyseng, and Weltz were charged with special responsibility for
and participation in criminal conduct involving high. altitude
experiments (par. 6 (A) of the indictment). During the course of the
trial, the prosecution withdrew this charge in the cases of Karl Brandt,
Handloser, Poppendick, and Mrugowsky. Only the defendants Rudolf Brandt
and Sievers were convicted on this charge.
The prosecution's summation of the evidence on the high-altitude
experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendants
Ruff, Romberg, and Weltz. An extract from this brief is set forth below
on pages 92 to 113. A corresponding summation of the evidence by the
defense on these experiments has been selected from the closing briefs
for the defendants Ruff and Sievers. It appears below on pages 114 to
140. This argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on
pages 140 to 198.
b. Selection From the Argumentation of the
Prosecution
EXTRACTS FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST
DEFENDANTS RUFF, ROMBERG, AND WELTZ
Early in the war it was deemed necessary to conduct
research in the field of high altitudes because of the higher ceilings
reached by the Allied fighter planes. This created the problem of
availability of human experimental subjects, inasmuch as animal
experimentation was considered inadequate. The heights involved were
12,000 meters to over 20,000 meters, hence it goes without saying that
such experiments were very dangerous and, as indicated by the evidence,
volunteers were not to be had. This difficulty was overcome by the use
of
92 |