Home > 2011
| 2009 | 2001 | 1996 Files
Transcripts | 1999
Katriuk | Critiques
Ulrich Busch | 22Sep2016 | to Lawrence Douglas
In this Email correspondence, Dr. Ulrich Busch continues to defend John
Demjanjuk against detractors feeding at the trough of the Holocaust Industry.]
Ulrich Busch correspondence with Lawrence DouglasFrom: Ulrich Busch <email@example.com>
Date: 2016-09-29 20:26 GMT+02:00
Subject: public controversial dicussions about the Demjanjuk case
To: "JD Prof. Douglas" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I seriously repeat my offer to you, to discuss the case with you in front of any public auditorium.
Prof of Law you know very well that the case was nothing else than a
political show case and farce. Just look at the first case of the 16
accused cases. The train came shortly after the arrival of
Trawnikis, who did not at all know, what they would have to do in
Sobibor. And you sell in your book, that Demjanjuk was guilty in this
first case, because he did not desert. This is not justice, it is a
travesty of justice. And you sell in your book, that Sobibor was only
and only a death camp, although you know, that several work camps were
operated by Sobibor and of course watched by Trawnikis from Sobibor.
The permanent presence of Demjanjuk in the death camp is one of the
biggest lies in the Munich judgement.
I hope very strongly, that you do not refuse my offer and that you stop avoiding to meet the truth.
From: Ulrich Busch <email@example.com>
Date: 2016-09-22 22:40 GMT+02:00
Subject: Re: Ihre Werbeveranstaltung at Case Western
To: Lawrence Douglas <firstname.lastname@example.org>, John
Demjanuk <email@example.com>, Ulrich Busch
Thank you for your answer. See please § 206 a of the German criminal
code. The trial in Munich did not end with a conviction, but with the
decision of the LG Munich: Das Verfahren wird eingestellt auf Kosten
This decision is the only outcome of the Munich trial. Das frühere
Urteil wurde damit gegenstandslos und geriet in Wegfall. Der deutsche
Verfahrensbegriff umfasst alle Instanzen bis zur Rechtskraft und ist
ein einheitliches und unteilbares Geschehen. Deshalb ist es nicht
erlaubt, von einer Verurteilung bzw. conviction zu sprechen oder sie zu
behaupten, bevor nicht die letzte Instanz entschieden hat.
You totally misunderstand the German system of "Burden of
proof". The proof of "voluntarily service" is the duty of the court.
The court had to proof, that the individual Trawniki personally and for
himself said yes to the service.
This is only possible, if the Trawniki asked the Trawniki-boss for
transferring him to Sobibor, knowing what kind of service he would be
obliged to do. There was not a single proof, that Demjanjuk applied for
a job in Sobibor. There was only overwhelming evidence, that the
Trawnikis were sent to Sobibor by the strict command of the
Verbrecherstaat Germany. They would have been shot, if they would have
refused to be transferred. If the beginning of the service was forced,
then the court has to proof for each individual Wachmann, if and when
he had a concrete chance to desert without danger for his life and that
there was no other hindrance at all against leaving the camp without
fear for his life.
Your critic of the defence about this matter proofs, that you
definitely belong to the overwhelming majority, which did not even try
to listen to defence arguments.
As a lawyer I was really surprised, that you as a Prof of Law and
teacher of the future generation of judges, prosecutors and lawyers,
was not able to say the truth about the outcome of the Munich trial: "a
juristical scandal". You know the contents of the statements of Mr
Danilschenko: " through the time of his service in Sobibor Demjanjuk
was many times not present". You know exactly, why the Supreme court
Israel did not convict Demjanjuk for Sobibor: Justice Barrak:"We do not
know, what he did in Sobibor and when he was there or elsewhere":
No court in this world could ever convict Demjanjuk under these
circumstances for the death of all Jews which were deported to Sobibor
in the time-period, which was limited through the transfer-lists. The
complete silence of your book
about this juristical scandal is more than shocking. It was your duty
as Law Professor, to inform the public about this.
There is much more to say about your thesis. For example
about your opinion, that it was a mistake to say: I was not in Sobibor,
but if I was there, I was forced and in fear of my life. First of all:
Demjanjuk used his right to be silent. Second: The two defence walls
are simple German use of Law and the court hat to proof the contrary of
both defence thesis. There was overwhelming evidence, that in
Sobibor nobody could sucessfully desert or escape. You find the sources
for this in my published last statement. Two Trawniki tried to desert,
were caught and shot. And you forgot to tell the public, which Nazi
or SS officer told each Trawniki : If you desert with a gun,
we will kill you, if you desert without a gun, you get a mild
punishment and then you can kill Jews again.
I am anytime ready for public discussions with you about your shocking
wrong opinions in your book. I hope you will agree. Its time for the
Best ULI .
2016-09-22 15:41 GMT+02:00 Lawrence Douglas
I of course understand that as a technical legal matter Demjanjuk died
with the presumption of innocence intact despite having been convicted
in LG Munich. In explaining to an American audience, it would
be wrong to claim that Demjanjuk was "never convicted." Rather, it
would be proper to say that the conviction never took legal effect as
Demjanjuk died before the appellate process had run its course. This
strikes me as an accurate statement of fact.
It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that Demjanjuk served
at Sobibor. The only interesting question, as I write in my book, is
whether his service was voluntary. I think I handle this question with
fairness to the complexity of the issue, though I can understand how
you or his son might reach different conclusions,
Sent from my iPad
> On Sep 21, 2016, at 4:53 PM, Ulrich Busch
> Sehr geehrter Prof. Douglas
> Deutsches Recht ist: " Der Angeklagte erhält das Recht auf ein
Verfahren, in dem er bis zur abschließenden Entscheidung über den
Schuldspruch wie ein Unschuldiger zu behandeln ist."
> Demjanjuk was never convicted in Germany. Your statement is
illegal and false and an offense of my client. I ask you, to
recall that statement.
> Sie wissen sehr genau, dass das Verfahren vor dem Landgericht
München nicht durch ein Urteil beendet wurde, sondern durch einen
Einstellungsbeschluss des Landgerichts München. Sie berufen sich in
Ihrer Werberede ausdrücklich darauf, das Deutsche Recht zu kennen. Sie
wissen, dass ausdrücklich von den staatlichen Stellen bestätigt wurde,
dass Demjanjuk ohne Verurteilung unschuldig verstorben ist.
> Die Wahrheit zu verschweigen, um ihr Buch mehr zu verkaufen,
ist ein Verstoß gegen das Gesetz.
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
> Dr. Busch RA