[Return] [Bottom]
  • Cantu -U.S. chemical analyst
  • TAV/NUN 2 - Document submissions
  • NO CASE - Legal arguments
  • COUNSEL - Dismisal of O'Connor

    Witness for prosecution in transcripts06.html

    (Jerusalem, Feb. 16, 1987 - Apr. 24, 1988)
    SUMMARY of English-language TRANSCRIPTS

    Antoine Cantu; T006528 - 6618; 1987/06/25, Thu.; Vol. 11
    [Top] [Bottom]

    T006529 - B.Sc. 1963; Ph.D. 1967 in Chemical Physics from University of Texas, Austin; PDF at University of Alberta, Edmonton; University of Mexico summer of 1970. In 1972 worked for Dept of Justice, 1973 Dept of the Treasury (Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms = ATF); 1985 FBI, since 1986 Dept of the Treasury, the U.S. Secret Service.
    - From 1973-83 at ATF, Cantu did forensic testing involving tax fraud.

    T006531 - ATF developed a "library" of inks - "collection of standard formulas of ink throughout the world", as well as paper.

    T006532 - Testified as expert witness in 30-35 cases
    T006533 - tav/205 = c.v. of Dr. Tony Cantu

    T006538 - On March 14, 1987 at Police Headquarters in Jerusalem, Mr. Lighter [Leiter?] for the defense and Dr. Cantu for the prosecution took samples of the ink using a 20 gauge hypodermic needle. (Took 2 or 3 discs of each ink he sampled.)
    [Did the court/prosecution/defense obtain permission from the owners of the various original documents to take such samples? Such testing does deface the original documents.]

    T006541 - From tav/149, Cantu took long rectangular sliver of paper to left of photograph (half for Cantu and half for Lighter of defense).
    - Took 3 + 3 samples from the circular stamp on upper right hand corner of photo
    [Why did he not also take ink samples from lower left circular stamp?]

    T006543 - Also took "stamp-pad ink" from other side - on left side 5th line "UND" (?), on RHS "DIENSTSITZ" and "TRAWNIKI". Also circular stamp [to left of Streibel signature]

    T006544 - Typewriter ribbon ink: - 3 discs removed from U of "Ukrainer", 3 discs from "Badehose" , 3 discs from "Demjanjuk" (on other side).

    T006545 - Colored pencil: Blue writing above "Stiefel",
    on upper right - stroke going from top to bottom, red diagonal stroke from left to upward right.
    - Fountain pen ink samples taken "on March 16, 1987 in Israel, and paper samples were sent to you to the United States later on."

    T006546f - Took ink samples from Streibel signature in tav/99 (1943-09-24), tav/100 (1942-06-18), tav/101 (1943-09-24)

    T006547 - Ink samples from tav/128 (Unrau?); later received paper sample.
    T006549f - tav/206 = photograph (?) of sheet of Retish Alexander - Cantu took ink sample

    T006552 - tav/207 = Trawniki index card of Nicholas Shefer [Schefer?, Schaefer?]
    - Cantu received paper samples from tav/21 (Demjanjuk driving license), tav/136 [personalbogen of Fritsch], tav/137 [personalbogen of Sheshiev]

    T006555- On tav/149, the 3 typewriter inks were all the same.
    - Of the 2 blue and one red pencil entries, the 2 blue were the same.
    - There were 6 different writing inks on tav/149 [7 according to T006584]
    - The 6 samples from stamped impressions all had the same profile.
    [But Cantu did not take any samples of the circular stamp on lower left corner of the photo.]

    T006555 - Profiles of the inks from tavs/136, 137, 207, 101, 206 were similar to tav/149.
    [Contradicted by Gill on T006603.]

    T006556 - The ink of the stamp pad impressions (2 samples each?) from amongst tavs/136, 137, 100, etc. were similar to each other but different from tav/149.
    - In comparing the profiles of the inks to the standard ink library, all of them were available in 1941.
    [??? But on T006603, he admits that none of the inks on tav/149 could be matched with those in the standard ink library. ???]

    T006557f - Cantu did optical and chemical analysis (chemical analysis gives most discrimination, using thin layer chromatography = TLC)
    - Cantu gives an excellent description of the analysis - water and ethanol to extract ink, transfers ink solution with pipette onto silica gel square plate, where it dries. Place plate edge into developing solvent (ethyl acetate, ethanol, water) which "moves up the plate by capillary action and develops the different dyes that are found in the ink by depositing them at different places as the liquid moves up the plate."

    T006560 - View plate with visible light, short and long ultraviolet light, infrared luminescence when irradiated with visible light, and lastly with Argon Ion and Copper Ion lasers, which exhibits some fluorescent properties of the ink.

    T006561 - The circular stamp on the upper right corner of the photo at first looked different, until he used the laser fluoresence technique.

    T006562 - Cantu: "That is correct. There are no differences seen at the Thin Layer Chromatographic level when the layer examination is used."

    [It would be wrong to conclude that, therefore, the inks are the same if laser fluorescence is identical, but visible and ultraviolet fluorescence is different. The Argon and Copper Ion lasers each emits at a specific wavelength only and will cause fluorescence in only a limited number of chemical compounds. The continuous spectrum of visible and ultraviolet light will induce fluorescence in a far greater variety of chemical compounds and is therefore far more discriminatory than laser fluorescence.]

    [An appropriate analogy may be for a pathologist, presented with the skeletons of a human and an ape, to conclude that both skeletons are of humans because both have 10 fingers and 10 toes.]

    T006562f - Comparison of papers - (1) dating the paper, (2) determine if it is of common or different origin.
    - Paper is categorized as to whether it is with or without a watermark. Watermark identifies manufacturer from whom relevant data may be obtained.
    [Presumably, there were no watermarks on tav/149 or any of the other documents Cantu examined, since the subject does not come up in his later testimony.]

    T006567 - Microscopic examination revealed no glass fibres (introduced in 1950) and no synthetic fibres (1953), but did reveal unbleached pulp and ground wood.
    - All the other documents, except tav/100 (1942-06-18 Streibel signature) gave same composition of paper "in different proportions" [?] (tav/100 had bleached pulp.)

    T006569 - The eosin test for polyethylenimine(?) (wet strength agent) was positive on tav/149, but it was attributed to protein in the paper.

    T006571 - Dialdehide starch test was also positive, but it was attributed to unbleached pulp.

    T006572 - No presence of stearine butadine lattice (?)
    - All Cantu's tests failed to detect any substance introduced after 1941.

    T006574 - Shaked completes direct examination.
    [We note that he did not testify on the photographic paper, of which he took a sample. Gill doesn't ask him about it in cross-examination either.]

    T006575f - Gill cross-examines Cantu
    - Gill points out that Cantu did not testify on the specific results on the other tav documents that he took samples from. He wants Cantu to testify on these results.

    T006576 - Shaked explains that [on March 14, 1987] the defense decided not to take any samples beyond tav/149, but much later [when?] O'Connor asked for samples from other specific documents which the prosecution did and gave to defense.

    The prosecution took samples from other documents [on March 14, 1987] and also gave Cantu identical samples later received by the defense.
    [Levin sides with Shaked's position.]

    T006582 - Cantu admits that if Gill used the same Russian purple ink today, the only dating that Cantu could make was to say that the ink was available prior to 1941.

    T006583 - Cantu did not take samples of purple ink in staple holes.

    T006584 - Excluding typewriter ink and the indelible blue and red ink [and the printing press ink], there are 7 different inks on tav/149.
    [On T00655 Cantu said there were 6 different writing inks]
    ink 1 = Streibel signature
    ink 2 = purple ink of Russian translation
    ink 3 = date 22.9.42
    ink 4 = date 27.3.43
    ink 5 = Teufel signature
    ink 6 = Demjanjuk signature
    ink 7 = 1 after Schnurschuhe
    [What about 2's after Mantel, Unterhemd, Unterhosen?
    What about Ruksak and 1 thereafter?
    What about purple ink in staple holes?]

    T006585 - Categorize ink according to whether or not it contains iron galvanate. Cantu: "Those that do not are two. And these are the purple ink and the ink whose name is the alleged defendent, and the remaining inks in the document are those that contain iron."
    The chromatogram using laser reveals differences among all the inks with iron.

    T006588 - Teufel signature is blue-black, the other 4 are black (and very similar to the naked eye, but contents are different).
    - Demjanjuk is turquoise, Russian translation is purple.

    T006590 - Cantu admits: "I could not say when it [Demjanjuk signature] was put on the card."

    T006592 - Paper of tav/149 is of lower quality.
    T006592 - Cantu saw fiber and/or fibre content that he could not identify in tav/149, but: "To do a species identification was not required in my examination."
    [??? Any self-respecting scientist or forensic examiner would have done so automatically. Obviously, Cantu has sold his soul to the prosecution.]
    - About 5% of fibers were of this category.

    T006597 - Heat ages paper: "... for every 3 hours of heat at 100 C, one artificially ages the paper for about 68 years."

    T006599 - Cantu: "Standards" are the pillars of forensic science. One needs them for comparison.

    T006603 - Gill: "Specifically, you could not match any of the inks that are on tav/149, with any specific example that you had in the library ..."
    Cantu: "Yes"
    [??? Why not? Then what is the point of having the Library? What are the implications of this?]

    T006607 - Cantu cannot identify the components of the stamp pad ink on tav/149.
    [Why not?]

    T006109 - Gill: "Is it within your field of expertise to know or determine whether or not a photograph, because it was attached by glue, was removed by putting a solvent or some kind of a loosener that would chemically react with the glue in order to loosen it and have the picture be removed easily. Is that a possibility, is that something within your range of knowledge, Dr. Cantu?"
    Cantu: "I am afraid I can not speculate on that."
    [What kind of chemical analyst is he, if he is not qualified to answer this?]

    T006611f - Discussion of what to do on Monday, June 29, 1987. Rogatories have not yet arrived and will need to be translated into Hebrew and English.

    T006613 - O'Connor: "We have been to Berlin [Otto Horn?], with the honorable bench, I have been also to Kern, in the absence of the honorable bench, and cross-examined witnesses with Mr. Horowitz [Who?] ..."

    T006614 - Yoram Sheftel "will be presenting the no case argument."
    T006616f - John Demjanjuk is scheduled to testify next - as soon as Monday.

    [W.Z. Summary
    Gill did a terrible job with Cantu, who simply snowed him with scientific terminology, but no scientific facts.

    The few bright spots for the defense were:
    (1) Both the Demjanjuk turquoise signature and the purple ink of the Russian translation had no iron.
    (2) Apparently, none of the inks that Cantu tested could be matched with any of the "library" inks.
    (3) The ink of the stamp pad impressions on tav/149 was different from all the other tav samples.

    I am surprised that Gill did not ask Cantu about:
    (1) tests on the photographic paper, of which Cantu had taken a sample.
    (2) why the circular stamp on the lower left corner of the photo was not tested.
    (3) some relevant questions about laser fluorescence.
    (4) the ink in the 2's on page D of tav/149 after Mantel, Unterhemd, Unterhosen.
    (5) the ink in Ruksak and the 1 thereafter.

    **** END of Cantu testimony in trial and in Vol. 11 ****

    TAV/NUN 2 Submission; T006619 - 6657; 1987/06/29; Vol. 11
    [Top] [Bottom]

    T006619 - tav/208 = Photo of blackboard of testimony of Cantu

    T006620-21 - MISSING (tavs/209, 210, 211 = Fedorenko material)

    T006622 - nun/51 = Goldfarb (undated) by Hannah Peitoff, Bar Ilan University re death of Ivan.

    T006624 - O'Connor: Heinrich Schaefer ... "have his particular deposition, which was taken in anticipation of the rogatory, also entered into the record under article 15."

    T006625 - Shaked: Deposition of Amenavizious of Aug. 14, 1986, incorporating a previous deposition of June 26, 1970. Rogatory was requested (Apr. 17, 1987) and approved (Apr. 29, 1987), but on May 2, 1987, prosecution was informed that Amenavizious had died in Belgium.

    T006626f - Amenavizious went through Trawniki and was posted at the Treblinka penal camp. His personalbogen with photo is tav/127 and claims to have carried an identifying document similar to tav/149.

    T006628f - Shaked: Gustav Muntzberger ... "17.09.1960, B22 in the prosecution's documents". Muntzberger testified at 1964 Dusseldorf trial that "Ivan fled to the partisans in Italy", sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, served 8 years and freed, died March 23, 1978.

    T006633 - Sheftel: "But the prosecution in fact decided to do without Schaeffer's rogatory."
    [Presumably, Schaeffer stated he had a certificate like tav/149. So why did the prosecution decline the rogatory?]

    T006637 - Presumably, Leonhart [Leonard] testified that he also bore a certificate like tav/149. O'Connor: Leonard was not a hiwi, but a schutzpolizei, and would definitely not have that type of document.

    T006641 - Leonard and Schaeffer were "clerks" at Trawniki, whereas Amenavizious was a "hiwi".

    T006642 - Shaked: Amenavizious claimed to have carried a "Dienstausweis", but doesn't remember if it was like tav/149.
    - Rudolf Reiss claimed that hiwis and wachmen did not have documents, but wore discs around their necks.

    T006654 - tav/212 = Amenavizious 1986-08-14 statement
    - tav/212b = Amenavizious 1970-06-26 statement

    **** END of TAV/NUN Submissions in Vol. 11 ****

    Sheftel NO CASE; T006658 - 6753; 1987/06/29; Vol. 11
    [Top] [Bottom]

    T006659 - Yom Kippur has a 19 year cycle which was Wednesday?, Sept 22, 1942, 1961, 1980, 1999.
    - Boraks testified that he came to Treblinka on Yom Kippur 1942 and encountered Ivan. This is the exact day that the Trawniki ID card claims that Demjanjuk was assigned to Okzow.

    T006661 - Levin: "... the bench can accept part of it as reliable and accurate, and reject as unreliable and inaccurate another part."

    T006665 - Epstein arrived in Treblinka on Sept. 25, 1942 - also at odds with the Trawniki document. Epstein identified Schmidt on photos as Nikolai.

    T006666 - Kolar unequivocally denied certain statements of Rosenberg.
    - Czarny never identified the Trawniki photo.

    T006667 - Rajchman [Reichman] never signed the photospread.
    - Same legal flaws apply to identifications by the 3 dead witnesses.

    T006668 - tav/149 says absolutely nothing about Treblinka.
    T006669 - No KGB witnesses appeared to explain the Trawniki ID card.
    T006670 - Bezalely and Epstein were to show signatures of Streibel and Teufel are originals and therefore tav/149 is authentic. Sheffler tackled the historical aspect and Smith the photograph.. "This is no way to prove authenticity or forgery." Cantu testified that the ink dates from 1941, but not that the document was authentic.

    T006672 - Sheftel concentrates on photo set of tav/57 in which photos 16 (Demjanjuk, 1951) and and 17 (Fedorenko) are much larger and clearer.

    T006673-74 - MISSING

    T006675 - Demjanjuk's lawyer, John Martin, was not present on March 29, 1978, when Epstein made identification, which by Israeli law makes it weightless.
    Levin: This ruling by Hameiri is no longer binding today.
    Sheftel: There has not been a single case where person was convicted in such circumstances.

    T006690f - Radiwker admitted in court that photos weren't similar.
    T006695 - tav/80 Epstein Dec. 25, 1979 - Trawniki Id photo was completely different from others in photospread.

    T006701 - "... the fact that Epstein pointed to the accused in this courtroom is of no value whatsoever", because Epstein himself stated that he had seen Demjanjuk on television. In the Cleveland trial, all the witnesses stayed together and discussed things. "Moreover, in this trial they all saw one another's testimony on television, before they even came here to testify."

    T006705 - "... witness Kolar says that everything Rosenberg recounted concerning ostensibly identifying in 1978 picture number 16 never happened."

    T006676 - Rosenberg arrival at Treblinka varies from June 24, July 11, August 20, to Jewish New Year (Saturday?, Sept. 11, 1942).

    T006707 - For tav/149 to comply with eyewitness testimony, there should have been 9 entries and not just two (Okzow, Sobibor).

    T006711 - Sheftel: "Tav/149 is a forgery forged by the KGB which has signed it."
    [In my opinion, Sheftel should not be saying that the KGB forged tav/149 because it is immaterial who forged it. It is simply a piece of paper that Demjanjuk never, ever had in his possession.]
    Levin: "The prosecution says that tav/149 is authentic, but that tav/149 is not correct when it comes to the details ..." [such as Sobibor, 175 cm, Zaporizhia, etc.]

    T006712 - Sheftel: "the prosecution must decide whether it believes tav/149 or the identification witnesses" - because they are irreconcilable. On Sept. 11, 22, 25, you cannot be both in Okzow and Treblinka.

    T006718f - Sheftel goes back to discrediting the identifications of Czarny, Boraks, Rajchman.

    T006722 - Sheftel attacks Ish-Shalom failure to conduct identification parades.
    T006726 - Hellman, 1976-09-28, was shown 5 photos in tav/67, but did not pick out photo 16.

    T006737 - "There is no other evidence, there is no other document which can in any way put John Demjanjuk in Treblinka except for these 5 identification witnesses."

    T006739 - "Without the eyewitnesses, there is no claim."
    T006745 - Levin: "Unfortunately tav/149 proves a great deal for the prosecution, unless you ultimately can either declare it invalid or refute and rebut it conclusively."

    T006748 - Levin overrules "the contention that there is no case to answer".
    T006749 - Demjanjuk: Wants to testify, but not today. He also wants better interpreters.
    T006750 O'Connor requests and receives an extension of thirty days.

    **** END of Sheftel NO CASE argument in Vol. 11 ****

    Change of COUNSEL; T006754 - 6783; 1987/07/15, 1987/07/20; Vol. 11
    [Top] [Bottom]

    T006754 - Levin: Refers to submissions of O'Connor and Sheftel concerning defense.

    T006755-56 - MISSING

    T006757 - Letter of O'Connor dated July 11, 1987 claiming Demjanjuk is confused and does not want to relieve O'Connor of his duties.
    - Application of Gill/Sheftel (without O'Connor) for postponement.
    - Presently, only O'Connor has power of attorney to represent Demjanjuk.

    T006759 - Demjanjuk requests a brief recess to consult with son-in-law [Nishnic]. Request granted.

    T006760 - Levin tells Demjanjuk that:
    (a) It is unlikely postponement will be granted.
    (b) Advocate Brawdly [John Broadley] can advise you but cannot plead before this court.
    (c) Bench does not accept Sheftel's contention that defense was not properly prepared [by O'Connor].
    (d) John Gill is attending a conference in U.S. from July 15-22, 1987.

    T006764-65 - MISSING

    T006766 - Levin: Does Demjanjuk give "power of attorney to Mr. Sheftel to represent him at this trial?"
    Demjanjuk: "I appoint Mr. Broadley, not Mr. Sheftel."
    Levin: "I did not ask about Mr. Broadley. Mr. Broadley is not here." Broadley has not applied and received approval of Minister of Justice or Bar Association to serve as representative.

    T006767: Demjanjuk: "In my opinion, it would be a decision that Mr. Broadley has to make."
    Levin: "In other words, Mr. Sheftel is not regarded by you as your defense counsel at this trial?"
    Demjanjuk: "Apparently not."

    T006768 - Demjanjuk: "Yes, Mr. Gill should be my attorney until Mr. Broadley is appointed."
    - A power of attorney signed by Demjanjuk appointing Gill as his attorney is submitted.

    T006769 - Sheftel also submits a power of attorney signed by Demjanjuk appointing Sheftel as his attorney.

    T006770 - Levin: "..., you will be represented from hereon in by Mr. John Gill and by Mr. Yoram Sheftel? Yes or no?"
    Demjanjuk: "Yes."

    T006671 - Trial to resume on July 27, 1987. From Aug. 27 to Sept. 7, 1987, the court will not be in session because of previous commitments of presiding judge.

    T006671f - Levin asks Demjanjuk to reconfirm that he dismisses O'Connor and appoints Gill and Sheftel even though there will be no postponement of the trial and even though John Broadley may not be allowed to represent him in Israel.

    T006775 - Demjanjuk: "Yes, I would like a further break to consult." Break granted.

    T006776 - Demjanjuk: "I would request to put off this session for another two [days] so that I can consult with my family over the telephone, at least. ... I cannot give my final decision now."

    T006777 - Levin: Postponement granted until 11:30 am, Monday, July 20, 1987.

    [1987/07/20, Mon.; T006778, Vol. 11]

    T006778 - Levin: ... "In the meantime, the request was submitted to this court by Mr. O'Connor himself which gives in detail the reasons why he requests to be released from representing you in the further hearings of this trial."

    T006779 - Demjanjuk: ... "I should like to inform you that I would like to release Mr. O'Connor without any consideration for the further continuation of this trial, regardless of that."

    T006779f - Levin: Accepts dismissal of O'Connor, but rejects Sheftel's request for further postponement.

    T006782 - Levin: Court will resume at 8:30 am, Monday, July 27, 1987.

    **** END of Change of COUNSEL in Vol. 11 ****

    [Top] [Next]