Martin Mendelsohn   Deposition   Nov 1979   Supplemental Answers: Exculpatory evidence suppressed?
Martin Mendelsohn, Deputy Director for Litigation, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the Answers to the foregoing interrogatories are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
The document below will hereinafter be referred to as the "Martin Mendelsohn Supplemental Answers" or sometimes more briefly as the "Supplemental Answers".  These Supplemental Answers constitute Exhibit B in Edward W. Nishnic's 2 Feb 1989 letter to all members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, which provides an excellent overview of the chief evidence indicating that the OSI suppressed or destroyed exculpatory evidence.  A particularly valuable document which constitutes Exhibit C in that same Nishnic letter is Demjanjuk defense attorney John H. Broadley's 24 Dec 1988 letter to US Attorney General, Richard Thornburgh.

The photocopy of the Supplemental Answers which is in possession of the Ukrainian Archive of course is in black and white, and one assumes that the original of the document was as well.  However, to facilitate its reading on screen, the Questions put by the Demjanjuk defense are shown in blue, and the Answers provided by Martin Mendelsohn of the US Office of Special Investigations (OSI) are shown in green.  In addition, the references to Richard Glazar and Kurt Franz particularly revealing are shown in red.  At the very bottom of the Supplemental Answers below, the day in November, 1979 is unspecified, and the signature of the individual in front of whom Martin Mendelsohn swore to the truth of his deposition can be seen to be absent as well.

The Martin Mendelsohn Supplemental Answers supply a significant piece of information suggesting that the US Justice Department was guilty of a massive suppression or destruction of evidence which was exculpatory of John Demjanjuk.  The Supplemental Answers alone do not prove such a massive suppression or destruction of evidence, they only suggest it.  However, taking other pieces of evidence into account at the same time as will shortly be done on the Ukrainian Archive will in fact convincingly demonstrate the truth of this charge beyond all reasonable doubt.

The significant conclusions stemming from Martin Mendelsohn's Supplemental Answers arise from incongruities that are discoverable therein, and these incongruities are best revealed in a table showing the 12 names of witnesses mentioned, and the categories in which their names appear.

What we would have expected is that any witness who was credited with a "Yes" in any one of the three columns would necessarily have been credited with a "Yes" in the remaining two columns as well.  That is, if a witness claimed to have knowledge of the Demjanjuk case (earning a "Yes" in column I), he or she would have necessarily claimed so to some investigator either one from the OSI or from the State of Israel and so would also have been listed among those who had provided a statement (earning a "Yes" in column II), and so would also be listed among those whose statement had been provided on some particular date (earning a "Yes" in column III).  However, the red cells containing a question mark point to the absence of any such expected "Yes," and which lead to incongruities such as that some witnesses did not claim to have knowledge of the Demjanjuk case and did not provide any statement, and yet were credited with a date at which a statement had been provided.  At best, such incongruities might reflect no worse upon Martin Mendelsohn than that he was slovenly in his preparation of the Supplemental Answers; at worst, however, some of these incongruities suggest a destruction of exculpatory evidence.

Claim to
Have Knowledge
Was Obtained
Date of
1 Gustaw Boraks ? ? Yes
2 Pinchas Epstein Yes Yes Yes
3 Kurt Franz Yes ? ?
4 Richard Glazar Yes ? ?
5 Abraham Goldfarb ? ? Yes
6 Shalom Kohn Yes Yes Yes
7 Martin Kolar Yes ? ?
8 Gerald Kravchuk Yes Yes Yes
9 Sonia Lewkowicz Yes Yes Yes
10 Georg Rajgrodzki Yes Yes Yes
11 Eliahu Rosenberg ? ? Yes
12 Jakob Szmulowicz Yes ? Yes

Of particular interest to the student of the Demjanjuk case are Richard Glazar and Kurt Franz, who above are listed as claiming to have knowledge of the Demjanjuk case, but not to have provided any statement and not to have been assigned any date of statement; and who below in Martin Mendelsohn's Supplemental Answers have their names and addresses shown in red.  Worth noticing is that the addresses of Glazar and Franz are known, something one would expect only if Demjanjuk prosecutors had gone to the trouble of tracking them down.

Treblinka survivor Richard Glazar is of particular interest because considerable evidence exists that he was in fact interviewed at length by prosecutors involved in the Demjanjuk case was sought by the OSI; wrote the OSI of his coming to Washington, DC at OSI expense to testify; and was written to by the OSI confirming his Holiday Inn accomodations in Washington, and the interview time.  Confirmatory of Glazar's initial popularity with Demjanjuk prosecutors is a tape recorded telephone conversation with US attorney William Wolf.  That Glazar had been in close contact with Demjanjuk prosecutors, including those at the OSI, is incapable of being doubted, and one possible explanation for Martin Mendelsohn's denial of this is that Glazar had indeed provided statements, but that as these proved exculpatory to John Demjanjuk, Demjanjuk prosecutors suppressed or destroyed them.

Kurt Franz, in turn, is of special interest because he was the commandant of Treblinka, and because he was readily available to the prosecution: as can be seen from his address below, he was at the time sitting in a German prison.  Of course Kurt Franz had information relevant to the Demjanjuk case in fact, he might be expected to have had better information than just about anyone else.  The Demjanjuk case was the most prominent that the OSI had ever undertaken.  The case was based on flimsy evidence, and was going badly for the prosecution.  John Demjanjuk was accused of being Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka; the commandant of Treblinka was sitting in a German prison, readily available for questioning.  In view of all this, is it conceivable that OSI prosecutors could have failed to interview Kurt Franz?  Is it conceivable that Israeli prosecutors could have failed to interview Kurt Franz?  No, such omissions are inconceivable.  Kurt Franz must have been interviewed.  And so how are we to take Martin Mendelsohn's sworn testimony below that Kurt Franz had never provided statements, and that there existed no date for such statements?  One way that we can take Martin Mendelsohn's sworn testimony is that statements from Kurt Franz were in fact obtained, but they proved exculpatory for John Demjanjuk, and so were suppressed or destroyed.  No other explanation seems possible.

And that is the direction in which the evidence points.  For example, in the Report of the Special Master (United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, No. 85-3435), Special Master Thomas A. Wiseman. Jr. states, "[T]he attorneys interviewed Kurt Franz a few days later [after 4 Sep 1979] ...." (p. 59); "The attorneys presented to Franz a photospread containing a photograph of Mr. Demjanjuk.  Although George Parker recalled that Franz 'pondered very long and very hard' over the photograph of Mr. Demjanjuk, he did not identify any of the pictures" (p. 62).

But the largest incongruity of all has yet to be mentioned.  An incongruity that is gargantuan in its proportions.  An incongruity that demonstrates the utter cynicism, ruthlessness, and duplicity of the Demjanjuk prosecution.  This incongruity is that Kurt Franz was supposed to have been Ivan the Terrible's military superior, the commander who ordered and supervised the crimes which Ivan the Terrible was supposed to have committed and yet we see that he who supposedly ordered the crimes was not charged with them, while the subordinate who supposedly carried out the orders absorbed the full brunt of Jewish indignation and prosecution, and was put on trial for his life.  He who ordered the crimes was not even questioned concerning them, was not even called as a witness against his subordinate who carried them out.

How to explain this last great incongruity?  The explanation is simple.  Kurt Franz was not publicly asked about Ivan the Terrible because there never had been any Ivan the Terrible.  Ivan the Terrible was a fictitious character created by the OSI to justify its persecution of John Demjanjuk.  Kurt Franz was not charged with ordering the crimes of Ivan the Terrible because there never had been any Ivan the Terrible, and because Kurt Franz being a German national on German soil would have been tried for Ivan the Terrible crimes in Germany and not in Israel, and only an Israeli court, certainly not a German one, would believe the fantastic stories of Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka.  Furthermore, Kurt Franz was not falsely accused because Germany was strong and it was not in Jewish interests to alienate a great power with false accusations against one of its nationals, even if that national happened to be serving time in jail.  John Demjanjuk was accused of being Ivan the Terrible because diaspora Ukrainians were weak, and because Ukraine was weak, and because it was in Jewish interests to discredit and to alienate Ukrainians and Ukraine.  The Jewish motivation was primarily twofold: (1) to magnify and incite Ukrainian anti-Semitism so as to promote the brain drain from Ukraine to Israel; and (2) to discredit one of the foremost victims of Jewish violence before that victim became strong enough to point an accusing finger.

The case of John Demjanjuk continues to cry out for justice.  If any reader of the Ukrainian Archive has documentation concerning the missing statements made by Richard Glazar or Kurt Franz on the subject of the Demjanjuk case, or has any memory of these statements, then he or she is urged to offer this material to the Ukrainian Archive for publication.









Civil Number C77-923

Honorable Frank J. Battisti


     On November 18, 1977 and on April 3, 1978, John Demjanjuk, ("Demjanjuk"), the defendant, served interrogatories on the United States of America, ("the Government"), the plaintiff.  The Government served answers to those two sets of interrogatories on January 24, 1978 and May 8, 1978, respectively.  The Government now supplements those answers where required to Rule 26(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

     The numbers of the answers given below correspond to the numbers of the particular interrogatories from the first and second set which require supplementation.

First Set:   November 18, 1977


     1.  State the name and last known address of every person known to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, or his agents, employees, or representatives who claim to have any knowledge of the alleged actions of the defendant alleged in Counts I through VI of plaintiff's complaint.

Pinchas Epstein
Shikun Achdut 62
Petach Tikva
Kurt Franz
Penal Institution
West Germany
Richard Glazar
Burgfeldermattweg 18
4123 Allschwil
Shalom Kohn
Haroestr 73
Ramat Gan
Martin Kolar
Salame Street 18
Israeli Police Headquarters
Yaffo, Israel
Gerald Kravchuk

Cleveland, Ohio
Sonia Lewkowicz
Hacherman 13
Ramat Hanasi
Bat Yam, Israel
Georg Rajgrodzki
Keltenweg 89
West Germany
Jakob Szmulowicz
Guatemala 6
Jerusalem, Israel


     2.  With respect to each person identified in the answer to the previous interrogatory, state:
a. Whether a statement was obtained from each or any of the persons by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, his agents, employees, representatives, or any other government official or representative thereof.
2a. Statements were obtained from the following individuals by the Israeli police:
Pinchas Epstein
Shalom Kohn
Sonia Lewkowicz
Georg Rajgrodzki
  A statement was obtained from Gerald Kravchuk by the U.S. Department of Justice.
2b. If any such statement was obtained, the date which it was obtained.
  Gustaw Boraks, 3/15/61
Pinchas Epstein, 6/7/60, 6/13/61, 3/29/78
Abraham Goldfarb, 6/14/60
Shalom Kohn, 6/7/76
Gerald Krauchuk, 3/7/79
Sonia Lewkowicz, 6/23/60, 3/15/78
Georg Rajgrodzki, 5/24/78
Eliahu Rosenberg, 2/11/61
Jakob Szmulowicz, 3/9/78

WASHINGTON            )
                      )    SS

    Martin Mendelsohn, Deputy Director for Litigation, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice being first duly sworn, deposes and says that the Answers to the foregoing interrogatories are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Martin Mendelsohn

    Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence at Washington, D.C. this     day of November, 1979.