A. No. I did not have the opportunity because the doctor is merely called in to an execution to ascertain when death occurs, but I am convinced that it was not my duty to examine the sentence order, for I had nothing to do with the actual execution. The order was given by the representative of the camp commandant; someone who was attached to the commandant’s office actually shot the people, and I was merely there to ascertain when death occurred and to note the symptoms of poisoning, but Dr. Ding did the latter for me. The official information from a high authority was sufficient proof to me for the legality of the execution. Q. In the case of two of the five thieves, the poison had no effect. You saw the suffering of the other three from the poison; why did you not shorten this suffering? A. The sight of this execution was one of the most horrible experiences of my life. On the other hand, I could not shorten the symptoms for in the first place there was no antidote against aconitine available. If it is in the circulation, then there is no possibility of removing it. In the second place, it was the express purpose to find out how long the symptoms of poisoning last in order in later cases to be able to use an antidote, which it was hoped would soon be discovered. Q. Did you know that executions in Germany can only be carried out by shooting, by hanging, or by beheading, and did you not have any misgivings when this execution was carried out in a different way? A. I am not a jurist; I do not know the methods of execution. On the other hand, I have already said that in my opinion the state itself has the right to determine the method of death for its citizens in wartime and doubtless has the right to determine the method of an execution. Here the suspicion had arisen that poison war was beginning against Germany. This seemed to be supported by the finding of poison Russian ammunition. Since the investigations were carried out by the highest authorities in the Reich, I had no doubt about the juridicial admissibility upon which I, as a doctor, had no influence. PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: Witness, were each of these men struck by more than one bullet or only by one bullet each? DEFENDANT MRUGOWSKY: Each one was shot only once in the thigh; two of these five persons were immediately killed by another shot, because the first shot of the poison ammunition had hit the artery in the thigh and their suffering was immediately stopped; but the others had only flesh wounds and after a certain period of time, symptoms of poisoning appeared; that was three people. DR. FLEMMING: Did you have anything else to do with the previous history of this execution? MRUGOWSKY: No. * * * * * EXTRACT FROM THE TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION EXPERT WITNESS DR. ANDREW C. IVY[15] _CROSS-EXAMINATION_ * * * * *