|"Mr. Demjanjuk has never said it didn't happen, and in my contact with this case, whenever the Holocaust deniers came in the door, Mr. Nishnic and I escorted them out immediately and told them we didn't want anything to do with them." — Michael Tigar|
04 July 2001
|WAS MICHAEL TIGAR A TIGER?|
MR. DRIMMER: I'd also like to read into the record from the defendant's testimony, trial testimony of August 5th, 1987, this is Plaintiff's Exhibit 98, page 7634, line 22.|
MR. TIGAR: Excuse me, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. TIGAR: This is the defendant's trial testimony from where?
MR. DRIMMER: This is from Israel, 1987.
MR. TIGAR: Your Honor, I'm going to object to the reading into the record of any evidence taken in the proceedings in Israel from the defendant, whether they result from police interrogation or trial testimony. My objection is based upon the fact that Mr. Demjanjuk was transferred to Israel under fraudulent papers, based on a fraud on the court.
He was held in Israel on solitary confinement, the lights were on 24 hours a day. During his interrogation by Israeli police he was denied access to counsel although he repeatedly requested it. He was kept awake through systematic sleep deprivation, and therefore his statements were obtained in violation of the peremptory norm of international law respecting torture as interpreted most recently by the South African Constitutional Court on Monday in its decision CCT/17, Mohammad versus The Republic, and the two opinions of the European Court of Human Rights cited in that opinion.
MR. DRIMMER: Your Honor, I had —
MR. TIGAR: Is it also our position, Your Honor, that because the United States is now a party to the Convention Against Torture that — and I'm making my record here, if Your Honor wishes I can explain how it is that the reasoning of the unanimous constitutional court supports our position, but our objection is to the admission of any evidence from that proceeding.
THE COURT: Okay.
Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 31-May-2001, pp. 460-461.
|OR WAS MICHAEL TIGAR A PUSSYCAT?|
We will show that these seven documents establish that Iwan Demjanjuk, identification number 1393, served at Trawniki training camp and as an armed guard at the Majdanek concentration camp, the Sobibor extermination camp, and the Flossenburg concentration camp.|
It is indisputable that terrible atrocities occurred at these camps and that the guards there guarded prisoners.
Prosecutor Edward A. Stutman in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 29-May-2001, p. 3.
Q. Dr. Sydnor, how many total people were killed at Sobibor between March 27th and mid-September, 1943?|
A. If I remember correctly, approximately 30 to 35,000.
Prosecutor Jonathan Drimmer examining Charles Sydnor in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 31-May-2001, p. 552.
We are talking about what happened in the camp. As to that, we have conceded and stipulated as strongly as possible, these convoys of people were killed there, and that's what that camp was about. It was a killing center. We have conceded that.
Defense counsel Michael Tigar in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 31-May-2001, p. 551.
Let us look first at what is not at issue. What is not in issue, Your Honor, is the horror of the Nazi
Holocaust during which between 5 and 6 million Jews were butchered. 5.1 million, according to Raul Hilberg.|
What is not at issue is that this was one of the most vicious Holocausts in the history of the world, the recorded history of the world. What is not at issue is that the conditions in the camps was deplorable and barbaric, and to that end, we have filed an amended answer with the Court based largely upon the indisputable historical record, and because that historical record is indisputable, we do not dispute it.
Defense Counsel Michael Tigar in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 29-May-2001, pp. 8-9.
Q. Now, the last time that Mr. Demjanjuk appeared in this courthouse, there was a mistaken identity problem, wasn't there, in his case?|
A. Yes, sir.
Michael Tigar cross-examining Charles Sydnor in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 05-Jun-2001, p. 763.
Do people who had a hard war make mistakes? They surely do, Your Honor, and six of them did the last time in front of Judge Battisti.|
Would I attack those people as ill motivated, those people who survived that privation, that savagery? Of course I wouldn't. I wouldn't dare to, Your Honor.
Defense counsel Michael Tigar in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 07-Jun-2001, p. 1073
We are not shrill anti-Semites and we are not deniers of the Holocaust. There are some of these defendants that come in here and say it didn't happen. Mr. Demjanjuk has never said it didn't happen, and in my contact with this case, whenever the Holocaust deniers came in the door, Mr. Nishnic and I escorted them out immediately and told them we didn't want anything to do with them. And I say that knowing the public interest this case has excited, Your Honor, and it's important for the public to know what our position is.
Defense counsel Michael Tigar in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 31-May-2001, pp. 385-386.
|JOHN DEMJANJUK WAS EXHAUSTED|
Q. Now, do you remember hearing back in 1981 of a Vanya letter, V A N Y A, letter?|
A. Not to my recollection.
Q. Do you remember hearing of the availability of a letter signed by Mr. Demjanjuk and dated February 3rd, 1941?
Michael Tigar cross-examining Gideon Epstein in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 29-May-2001, p. 128.
"Question: Can you say without a doubt that that's not the way you wrote your name in 1942?"|
"Answer: It is like I wrote my name."
Prosecutor Jonathan Drimmer reading from an early interrogation of John Demjanjuk in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 31-May-2001, pp. 455-456.
Q. And then the next thing says "Trawniki cards from Israel," and you were told those were from Israel, correct?|
A. That's correct.
Q. Now, do you know how those Trawniki cards from Israel got to the United States?
A. No, sir.
Q. Did anyone tell you that Mr. Rosenbaum had personally brought them?
Michael Tigar cross-examines prosecution witness Thomas J. Smith in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 30-May-2001, p. 261
Now, I didn't see the Trawniki card in an archive, of course, because that came from Israel, [...].
Charles Sydnor under cross-examination by Michael Tigar in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 05-Jun-2001, p. 681.
Q. Now, in addition to that, have you spoken out and given a personal opinion about Mr. Demjanjuk in this case, the defendant in this case?
A. I did in 1989, but not in this case now, no, sir.
Q. But in 1989?
A. 1989, yes, sir.
Q. In 1989, you called him a monster, didn't you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. You said "A great drama and an even greater good move toward final resolution." Did you say that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you wrote that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was the "even greater good" that you wanted to happen to Mr. Demjanjuk?
A. Well, not necessarily anything with Mr. Demjanjuk, but a conclusion to the trial and the release and
publication of the historical and legal material that had been accumulated by the District Court in Jerusalem at the time, and at that time I believe Mr. Demjanjuk was under sentence of death, and I believe that the sentence should be carried out.
Q. You said that he would be hanged and that the cause of justice will never have been better served. You said that, correct?
A. Every word of it, yes, sir.
Q. You also said that his attorneys, American attorneys, were shrill anti-Semites, correct?
A. Yes, sir, and by that I meant the early attorneys.
Q. Which attorneys did you have in mind when you characterized lawyers as shrill anti-Semites?
A. I honestly at this point don't remember whether it was Mr. Martin or Mr. O'Connor. One of them had said at one — at the first trial or the second trial that Naziism was a term that has been much maligned of late.
Q. And did that person say that shrilly?
A. Well, I considered that a pretty shrill statement, yes, sir.
Q. You also said that "Mr. Demjanjuk's defense or cause was funded by the same circles that have combined wealth and hatred to support radical right wing causes in our land for more than a generation." What basis did you have in
your research to make that statement about people that contributed to the defense of a person who was a litigant in Federal Court?
A. Well, that was based on conversations that I had had in the early '80s with former senior trial attorney with OSI, who is now a Judge, Bruce Einhorn, who had said that even though no one knew for certain that the supposition was that money that was funding the defense was coming both from circles in the United States and in Canada.
Q. Did you say supposition?
A. I'm sorry, sir?
Q. Did you use the word supposition?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And so you took a supposition and wrote it down and repeated it in a public meeting, is that correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Were you introduced at that public meeting as a historian?
A. I don't recall how I was introduced at that meeting.
Q. Now, in addition to that, you said "These, we must remember, are the same people who considered Patrick Buchanan an expert in the matter of Iwan Demjanjuk and George Will as an authority on Adolph Hitler and who took and treated seriously the twice definitively," which is underscored, "disproven theory of mistaken identity that
succeeded only in getting Demjanjuk denaturalized, deported, extradited to Israel, and tried and convicted and sentenced to death." You wrote that?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you also wrote that there was no mistake, is that correct, about Demjanjuk?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But there was a mistake, wasn't there, sir? Was there a mistake?
A. There was subsequently a mistake, but at the time I wrote that, I believe the Court had concluded proceedings and sentence had been passed, and the sentence was under review.
Q. Yes. But the sentence was that he was Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, correct?
A. Yes, but that was a mistake.
Q. And you said he was Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka, right?
A. Yes, sir, and I was wrong.
Q. Tell us what was wrong with either your methodology or the way in which you used your methodology that led you to make that mistake and to publicly repeat it in the words that I have read to the Court.
A. Well, that speech was based on upon what I knew at the time, based on what I knew at the time of the verdicts
that had been reached in courts in the United States and the denaturalization and deportation proceeding, and then what I had followed in the period between 1987 and 1989 about the legal proceedings in Israel.
Q. Had you at that time spent a day with Mr. Finder, the Israeli prosecutor, as of 1989 when you made that speech, when had happened?
A. Yes, sir. In January of 1987 I did, yes, sir.
Q. And you spent some time with a Mr. Einhorn, as well?
A. In 1983 and '84, yes, sir.
Q. And that was in connection with your affidavit that you told us about, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And in that affidavit, you described or discussed the 1393 service pass, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who else, if anyone, in the United States Department of Justice did you talk with to gather the information that you eventually used to help you reach the conclusions that you expressed in 1989?
A. I don't recall that I talked to anybody else in the Justice Department.
Q. Just Mr. Einhorn?
A. Mr. Einhorn, I think over the intervening period between '83, '84 and '89, I certainly talked to the staff
historians at OSI about the evolution of the Demjanjuk case through the extradition process, and then the trial in Israel.
Q. As a historian in that period who had written about World War II, did you in form or substance ask of these Department of Justice historians, "Are you sure you got the right guy?"
A. I asked the Israelis that in 1987.
Q. Well, we'll get to that. My question is, in any of your conversations with the Department of Justice personnel —
Q. — before 1989, did you as a historian say, "Are you sure you got the right guy?"
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Who did you ask that question of?
A. I had lengthy conversations on that subject with Peter Black, who at that time was the chief staff historian at OSI, who is now the senior research historian at the Holocaust Museum in Washington, specifically because I wondered on the issue of the Trawniki card specifying Sobibor and the witnesses attesting to Treblinka, and I was curious and concerned if there was a possible conflict between those two things, how can the Trawniki card say Sobibor and the witnesses say Trawniki.
Is it possible that if the card says — I'm sorry. Treblinka is what I mean to say. If the card says Sobibor, could he have served at Treblinka? Is there a chance that there is not necessarily any conflict between the two things.
Q. When is it that you first got the idea that there might be a conflict between the evidence that you were seeing and the proposition that Mr. Demjanjuk had been Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka?
A. I don't remember. I raised the question in discussions with at least Mr. Black at OSI, and I raised the question in the discussions I had in Jerusalem with the Israelis.
Q. Did you ever say in words or substance to any prosecutorial authority, "I, as a historian, Dr. Charles Sydnor, see a contradiction here. This guy might be executed. Don't you think we should look into it?"
A. No, sir.
Q. Why not?
A. Well, I raised the question in the discussions in the '80s. The answers I received were that the witness testimony seemed compelling, they seemed independently generated, they seemed broad based enough that — I don't remember all the different explanations, but they were basically that there is probably not necessarily a conflict
between the annotation of Sobibor on the Trawniki card and the possibility of later service at Treblinka.
Q. And that was a mistake?
A. I believe it was a mistake, yes, sir.
Q. As you sit there today, sir, you don't believe that Mr. Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible at Treblinka, do you?
A. I do not believe he was Ivan the Terrible at Treblinka.
Michael Tigar cross-examines prosecution witness Charles W. Sydnor in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 30-May-2001, pp. 320-327.
What we have here, Your Honor, is an expert report filed by a man who says that he is a historian and that he takes responsibility for the report of Charles Sydnor, Jr.|
Now, in the United States Supreme Court case in Hazel Atlas versus Empire Glass, which was relied on by the Sixth Circuit in Demjanjuk versus Petrovsky, the precise fraud on the Court was that an allegedly independent expert had signed a report that was in fact prepared by the lawyers.
Now, it is our position — and I understand the Court may reject it — that the same thing has happened here, that the testimony of this expert is not admissible because the other side did not disclose to us, either candidly or in a manner that permits me intelligently to put trial subpoenas out, the basis for the report. We now find that there are a half a dozen government employees that were involved in this preparation and document collection, Your Honor. And it's just too late for us.
Therefore, it's our respectful submission that on that basis alone, he's not qualified as an expert.
Defense counsel Michael Tigar in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 30-May-2001, pp. 357-358.
[T]hese men were to carry out the functions of what became known as Operation Reinhardt, which was the SS code name for the physical extermination of the Jews of Poland.|
The code name for the operation was bestowed on the memory of Reinhardt Heydrich, who was assassinated by Czech commandoes and died on June the 4th, 1942. That's where the name Operation Reinhardt comes from.
Charles W. Sydnor in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 31-May-2001, p. 470.
Q. Among the historians upon whom you rely in your reports is a man named Arad, A R A D, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he is the author of a book entitled Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. [...] I do want to
ask you, as a historian, what, if any, role did Dr. Arad's work play in your developing your methodology that you've talked about on direct examination?
A. After probably 1993, a good bit. I mean in the course of what I learned about the three Operation Reinhardt camps, that of course is the first and still one of the most valuable works to consult. So after 1993, a good deal.
Q. And you think that is it Dr. Arad or Mr. Arad?
A. I'm not sure. I think he's Dr. Arad.
Q. And he is the head of the archive in Israel, correct?
A. He is the retired director of Yad Vashem, yes, sir.
Q. And Yad Vashem is an archive?
A. Yes, sir, memorial archive.
Q. Now, he made the same mistake you did, didn't he, about Mr. Demjanjuk?
A. I'm not sure how you mean.
Q. Well, he says that the Ukrainian Iwan Demjanjuk was Ivan the Terrible at Treblinka, he says at page 197 of his book and repeats it at page 235 of his book. I've marked those, and if you'll just confirm that for the Court.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you cite his book extensively in your report to this Court, correct?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you happen to notice these two references in this book when you were writing your report to this book?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you please explain to His Honor what methodological difficulties Dr. Arad had in reaching the conclusions that he expressed and is a part of the studies he made?
A. Well, I believe that he relied on the testimony and the identifications provided by the witnesses in the processes both in the United States and in Israel to come to the same conclusion that the courts did and that I did.
Michael Tigar cross-examines prosecution witness Charles W. Sydnor in Transcript of proceedings before the honorable Paul R. Matia, Case No. 1:99CV1193, Cleveland, Ohio, 30-May-2001, pp. 327-329.
|JEWISH MOTIVATION IS TRANSPARENT|
|AND WHERE WAS YOUR VOICE?|