| . |
14. GAS OEDEMA (PHENOL) EXPERIMENTS
a. Introduction
The prosecution introduced evidence calculated to show that
inhuman acts and atrocities (as generally alleged in paragraph 6 of the
indictment) were committed in the course of gas oedema experiments. These
experiments were not specifically described in the subparagraphs of paragraph 6
of the indictment, which particularized 12 specific types of experimentation.
On this charge the defendants Mrugowsky and Hoven were convicted and the
defendant Handloser was acquitted.
The prosecution's summation of the evidence on the gas oedema
experiments is contained in its closing brief against the defendant Mrugowsky.
An extract from this brief is set forth below on pages 684 to 685. This
argumentation is followed by selections from the evidence on pages 685 to 694.
b. Selection from the Argumentation of the
Prosecution
EXTRACT FROM THE CLOSING BRIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT
MRUGOWSKY
* * * * * * * * * *
Gas Oedema Serum Experiments
The affidavit of Dr. Erwin Schuler, alias Ding, states that at
a conference in the Military Medical Academy in Berlin, at the end of 1942, in
which he took part, one of the topics of discussion was the fatality of gas
oedema serum on wounded soldiers. 'The affidavit goes on to state that among
the participants in the discussion were Killian, General Schreiber, Mrugowsky,
and a medical officer who was unknown to him. Killian and Mrugowsky gave
reports on soldiers who had received the serum in high quantities and hours
later, after apparently having recovered, died suddenly without visible reason.
It was suspected that the phenol content of the serum brought about the fatal
result. In the presence of Killian and Schreiber, Mrugowsky ordered Ding to
take part in the performance of euthanasia with phenol on a concentration camp
inmate and to describe the results in detail. Ding later witnessed the
execution of four or five persons with phenol injections by the defendant Hoven
in the Buchenwald concentration camp According to orders, Ding reported his
findings to Berlin. (NO-257, Pros. Ex. 283.)
Mrugowsky denied having given any such order to Ding. It is quite apparent,
however, that Ding-Schuler, who was under arrest at the time he executed this
affidavit, would not have implicated himself in a crime which did not occur.
Mrugowsky's continued interest in the
684
|