The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
User avatar
theblackrabbitofinlé
Posts: 2094
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by theblackrabbitofinlé »

Duke Umeroffen wrote:Making the trivial observations of Black rabbit in which we see him taking the rise by picking as usual the lowest of the hanging fruit; oddly captioned images or truncated photogr. such as a famous ill. of a woman with her child being shot in Ivangorod (moving away from sympathy v antipathy but centring on empathy) pale utterly into complete, nonentital, insignifficance.
That's not what Robert Frisk sees in the image:

Image
It may be – look at the picture carefully – that the soldier is actually shooting at the four men and that one of the other two rifle barrels is firing at the woman with the child. The shadows on the ground to the left suggest there may have been many more killers shooting at that moment.
He continues:
Incredibly, when the photograph was used in a book published by the Soviet-installed Polish communist regime after the war, a right-wing West German newspaper, Deutsche Soldaten Zeitung, ran a headline above it "Achtung Fälschung" (beware falsification). The man pointing the rifle towards the young woman and her child was not wearing German uniform or using a German rifle, the paper said. A certain Professor Otto Croy accused the Poles of fabricating the photograph for propaganda.

Then, mercifully, up popped a former member of Hitler's Einsatzgruppen, the "special action" squads used to murder a million Jews in Ukraine. The soldier in the picture is wearing German Einsatzgruppen uniform, he said, and holding the usual Einsatzgruppen rifle. What more proof do you need? Years later, an exhibition of German atrocity photographs in Eastern Europe was put on in Dresden where an old man stared at the pictures for a long time. Then he began to cry. And as he rushed from the exhibition hall, he shouted: "It's me...It's me."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 64646.html
We just wish to point out to the court that is not a signed sworn statement of Dr. Bender but merely a translation of an alleged or purported statement of Dr. Bender, the original of which, like many other things, is not to be found today.
- Defence counsel, Dachau trial, 7 August 1947


Would you like to financially contribute to the upkeep of RODOH, kindly contact Scott Smith. All contributions are welcome!


User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28796
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
Pointing out that people appear as witnesses once they have been interviewed and investigations have been carried out is the case in courts all over the world. Stop playing dumb.
Another dodge to the points of corruption I have pointed out before.
The answer is neither of us can prove she has or has not been examined.
And therefore you are using her as a reliable witness because...?
It would be wrong to dismiss all witnesses because some have lied and all trials because some have been corrupted. The Eichmann trial was televised and so witness lying and corruption not dealt with would be there for the whole world to see.

People giving evidence in court are there because they were traced by the investigators and the subject of interviews and examinations. For you to claim she was an unreliable witness is based on her never having been the subject of any investigation, interview and examination. That would mean the whole Eichmann trial was staged using actors and a script. Incredible claims need incredible proof. Got any?
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Werd »

It would be wrong to dismiss all witnesses because some have lied and all trials because some have been corrupted.
I don't recall doing that. In fact I only recall attacking witnesses and lawyers and certain trials where there is clear evidence of tomfoolery going on.
https://www.rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic. ... 141#p57141
The Eichmann trial was televised and so witness lying and corruption not dealt with would be there for the whole world to see.
Same argument could be made for the Srebrnik trial where you admitted no THOROUGH EXAMINATION was done by the judge to prove his wounds or scars existed. Same argument could be made about Demjanjuk trial where even photographs were taken as well and writeups were made in papers and magazines. And this was a trial where an innocent man was almost put to death and at least one defence lawyer was murdered and another was attacked with acid. And the prosecutors were willing to subborn clear perjured witnesses. You have no point.
People giving evidence in court are there because they were traced by the investigators and the subject of interviews and examinations.
And Demjanjuk's Jewish defence lawyer found evidence of lying witnesses and prosecutorial misconduct. You have no point.
For you to claim she was an unreliable witness is based on her never having been the subject of any investigation, interview and examination.
Is the proper way to behave given many past examples of people being economical with the truth in holocaust emotionally and historically charged holocaust trials. You are implicitly and abritrarily trying to claim that at a certain point in time, there was no more tomfoolery in any holocaust related trial. You are implying all witnesses should just be believed without being thoroughly examined. That is special pleading and that does not work.
That would mean the whole Eichmann trial was staged using actors and a script. Incredible claims need incredible proof.
No it means that it would have been useless for German defendants to disagree with already entrenched propaganda that passed as history. I have explained this over and over when I evicerated Jonathan Harrison's attack on Jurgen Graf's take on the German trials in the 40's up to the 60's. A piece you have still dodged to this day like the troll you are.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=67267#p67267
And it also means that if defendants proclaimed their innocence like Demjanjuk, that you could have lying witnesses and the mysterious death of one defence lawyer and an acid attack on another. Were it not for Demjanjuk's courageous Israeli lawyer putting aside his politics and doing his job, Demjanuk would have been murdered by the Israeli government whose agents in the trial (prosecutors and prosecutors witnesses) were willing to put an innocent man to death. You have no point.

the fact that you can't find any evidence to document her wounds and prove she is telling the truth and apply the same standards to her like any other witness who needs to have their stories checked and yet are continuing to make excuses shows your true colours.
Last edited by Werd on Sat Jan 24, 2015 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Werd
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Werd »

theblackrabbitofinlé wrote:
Duke Umeroffen wrote:Making the trivial observations of Black rabbit in which we see him taking the rise by picking as usual the lowest of the hanging fruit; oddly captioned images or truncated photogr. such as a famous ill. of a woman with her child being shot in Ivangorod (moving away from sympathy v antipathy but centring on empathy) pale utterly into complete, nonentital, insignifficance.
That's not what Robert Frisk sees in the image:

Image
It may be – look at the picture carefully – that the soldier is actually shooting at the four men and that one of the other two rifle barrels is firing at the woman with the child. The shadows on the ground to the left suggest there may have been many more killers shooting at that moment.
He continues:
Incredibly, when the photograph was used in a book published by the Soviet-installed Polish communist regime after the war, a right-wing West German newspaper, Deutsche Soldaten Zeitung, ran a headline above it "Achtung Fälschung" (beware falsification). The man pointing the rifle towards the young woman and her child was not wearing German uniform or using a German rifle, the paper said. A certain Professor Otto Croy accused the Poles of fabricating the photograph for propaganda.

Then, mercifully, up popped a former member of Hitler's Einsatzgruppen, the "special action" squads used to murder a million Jews in Ukraine. The soldier in the picture is wearing German Einsatzgruppen uniform, he said, and holding the usual Einsatzgruppen rifle. What more proof do you need? Years later, an exhibition of German atrocity photographs in Eastern Europe was put on in Dresden where an old man stared at the pictures for a long time. Then he began to cry. And as he rushed from the exhibition hall, he shouted: "It's me...It's me."
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 64646.html
Sounds like an admission that the nazis cleaned out the ghetto with guns and bullets. A legitimate nazi atrocity that belongs in that codoh tread?

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28796
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
It would be wrong to dismiss all witnesses because some have lied and all trials because some have been corrupted.
I don't recall doing that. In fact I only recall attacking witnesses and lawyers and certain trials where there is clear evidence of tomfoolery going on.
https://www.rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic. ... 141#p57141
The Eichmann trial was televised and so witness lying and corruption not dealt with would be there for the whole world to see.
Same argument could be made for the Srebrnik trial where you admitted no THOROUGH EXAMINATION was done by the judge to prove his wounds or scars existed.
No thorough examination that we know of. That does not mean no thorough examination at all, ever. Big difference. In Scotland there are pre trial agreements over evidence. So someone who had been shot would be examined by both prosecution and defence before the trial and if it is agreed they had been shot it would only be referenced during the trial. The witness would not be examined again during the trial. Even if there are no pre trial agreements the German and Israeli court systems mean witnesses are investigated before they appear.
Werd wrote: Same argument could be made about Demjanjuk trial where even photographs were taken as well and writeups were made in papers and magazines. And this was a trial where an innocent man was almost put to death and at least one defence lawyer was murdered and another was attacked with acid. And the prosecutors were willing to subborn clear perjured witnesses. You have no point.
Since you agree that not all trials can be dismissed because of the ones that were flawed by point stands.
Werd wrote:
People giving evidence in court are there because they were traced by the investigators and the subject of interviews and examinations.
And Demjanjuk's Jewish defence lawyer found evidence of lying witnesses and prosecutorial misconduct. You have no point.
My point stands and in Demjanjuk's case the Israeli appeal court system was shown to work and stop miscarriages of justice.
Werd wrote:
For you to claim she was an unreliable witness is based on her never having been the subject of any investigation, interview and examination.
Is the proper way to behave given many past examples of people being economical with the truth in holocaust emotionally and historically charged holocaust trials. You are implicitly and abritrarily trying to claim that at a certain point in time, there was no more tomfoolery in any holocaust related trial. You are implying all witnesses should just be believed without being thoroughly examined. That is special pleading and that does not work.
Strawman. Each trial should be taken on its own merits and conduct.
Werd wrote:
That would mean the whole Eichmann trial was staged using actors and a script. Incredible claims need incredible proof.
No it means that it would have been useless for German defendants to disagree with already entrenched propaganda that passed as history. I have explained this over and over when I evicerated Jonathan Harrison's attack on Jurgen Graf's take on the German trials in the 40's up to the 60's. A piece you have still dodged to this day like the troll you are.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=67267#p67267
And it also means that if defendants proclaimed their innocence like Demjanjuk, that you could have lying witnesses and the mysterious death of one defence lawyer and an acid attack on another. Were it not for Demjanjuk's courageous Israeli lawyer putting aside his politics and doing his job, Demjanuk would have been murdered by the Israeli government whose agents in the trial (prosecutors and prosecutors witnesses) were willing to put an innocent man to death. You have no point.
My point that each trail stands on its own and you agreed that only where there is evidence of "tomfoolery" that causes the verdict to fold, such as Demjajuk do we ignore the verdict. But even within a deeply flawed trail, not all witnesses are necessarily lying and vice versa.
Werd wrote:the fact that you can't find any evidence to document her wounds and prove she is telling the truth and apply the same standards to her like any other witness who needs to have their stories checked and yet are continuing to make excuses shows your true colours.
It is me applying normal court standards which means people don't get to give evidence in court that you were shot unless the investigators, defence and prosecution are satisfied the person have been shot.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Werd »

Strawman. Each trial should be taken on its own merits and conduct.
Then why are you referencing other cases in different times and places to justify A PRIORI she is telling the truth and using that as your only piece of evidence for her being truthful?

Nessie Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 12:08 pm
People giving evidence in court are there because they were traced by the investigators and the subject of interviews and examinations.
Nessie Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2015 5:15 pm
someone who had been shot would be examined by both prosecution and defence before the trial and if it is agreed they had been shot it would only be referenced during the trial.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28796
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Nessie »

My evidence she is telling the truth is that trial was televised and the evidence against Eichmann was sound. To put her on the stand claiming she had been shot when she had not would be too high risk for such a trial.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Werd »

To put her on the stand claiming she had been shot when she had not would be too high risk for such a trial.
Were her pre trial examinations that looked to verify her story and her scar televised or documented? If not, then all the television viewers who are not in the courtroom have to go on is faith. And that is all that you have apparently. Why is what they see so important? Shouldn't we be focusing on what medical doctors and experts claimed to have seen and verified? Why do you shift the goalposts so?

By such retarded logic, nobody ever lies in any trials because there is a penalty for perjury. Hell let's take it even further. Nobody ever breaks the law because they could go to jail. But if nobody breaks the law, then we don't need jails or police or lawyers and all those crime stats are false. This is not a strawman. This is just a reductio ad absurdum. It shows how stupid your logic is when applied to other cases. Meaning it can't apply in any case.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 28796
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Nessie »

Werd wrote:
To put her on the stand claiming she had been shot when she had not would be too high risk for such a trial.
Were her pre trial examinations that looked to verify her story and her scar televised or documented? If not, then all the television viewers who are not in the courtroom have to go on is faith. And that is all that you have apparently. Why is what they see so important? Shouldn't we be focusing on what medical doctors and experts claimed to have seen and verified? Why do you shift the goalposts so?
I have not shifted the goalposts. I have consistently said that witnesses in trials are examined and interviewed before hand. A gunshot wound is not something to be lied about, it is either there or not. For the prosecution to put someone on the witness stand who has no such wound would be idiotic as the investigators would know that is the case. The defence would also have something to say about it and would not let such pass.

If we had her pre trial interviews and examinations or medical records I would happily focus on them. Gun shot wounds are either there or they are not and if someone is put on the witness stand who states they have been shot and there is no wound the prosecution, defence, judge and investigators would have to be in on such a scam.
Werd wrote:By such retarded logic, nobody ever lies in any trials because there is a penalty for perjury. Hell let's take it even further. Nobody ever breaks the law because they could go to jail. But if nobody breaks the law, then we don't need jails or police or lawyers and all those crime stats are false. This is not a strawman. This is just a reductio ad absurdum. It shows how stupid your logic is when applied to other cases. Meaning it can't apply in any case.
You have tried to use logic and fallacies there, but it has not worked for you as intended. You need to learn more about logic and fallacies. People lie and commit crime despite the penalties.

My logic is that each trial and witness should be taken on their own merits. Some lie and IMO should be punished and it is wrong when they are not. Some make mistakes and as a result they are no use for evidencing a case. Others tell the truth.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Werd
Posts: 9972
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 6:38 am
Contact:

Re: The BBC's 'The Eichmann Show' drama

Post by Werd »

People lie and commit crime despite the penalties.
You have just undercut your own argument that she is to believed simply because it was televised and people were watching.
For the prosecution to put someone on the witness stand who has no such wound would be idiotic as the investigators would know that is the case. The defence would also have something to say about it and would not let such pass.
You are recycling the same old shit again and ignoring how it would have been useless for German defendants to disagree with already entrenched propaganda that passed as history. That goes for their defense attorneys as well. I have explained this over and over when I evicerated Jonathan Harrison's attack on Jurgen Graf's take on the German trials in the 40's up to the 60's. A piece you have still dodged to this day like the troll you are.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?p=67267#p67267
What's the defendant going to do in this climate? Deny the charges and call her a liar and demand evidence? Hahaha. Don't pretend these holocaust trials were all impartial.

Absurd atrocity stories were encouraged by the lawyers.

Example 1. Clip from Italian edition of Mattogno Graf and Kues' book on the Atktion Reinhardt camps.
https://www.rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic. ... 016#p54016

As I also stated in the Srebrnik thread that ended up also being dodged...
The pretense to punishing false testimony in Jerusalem resulted in how many people who lied at the Demjanjuk trial again saying he was Ivan...? Exactly.
And this too, since Nessie refuses to learn from his mistaken claims about incorruptible court officials whose high moral standards would make Batman blush.
https://www.rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic. ... 249#p53249
However, the Trawniki ID card No. 1393, issued to the name Demjanjuk, which had been reprinted in the News from Ukraine and later became the only piece of documentary evidence used in the trial, exists in two variations: the second card numbered 1393 and bearing the name Demjanjuk belongs to the papers of the concentration camp Flossenbürg, which are held in the Federal Archives in Koblenz. Similar names are very common in the Ukraine. But timewise the number does not correspond to Demjanjuk's stay in Trawniki. - Furthermore, ID numbers were only used once.

The 'original ID card' was not available for the pre-trial investigations in Jerusalem. This central piece of evidence was clearly not officially available from the Soviet Union, for which reason Armand Hammer, the American billionaire of Jewish extraction, was called in. Hammer had already enjoyed an extremely good business relationship with Soviet circles in Lenin's time.[8] In any case the Trawniki ID card did not get to Jerusalem through official channels, but personally via Armand Hammer. If the ID card were officially released, appropriate papers would have been present both in Moscow and in Israel.

Dieter Lehner, the expert from the Demjanjuk defense team, has exposed the ID card as a total fabrication,[9] a discovery matching those of the German Federal Criminal Police Office. Even though the Israeli authorities were already apprised of this fact by the Federal Criminal Police as early as 1987, the Court suppressed this information. Chief Prosecutor Michael Shadek commented merely:

"As far as I am concerned Demjanjuk did commit murders - whether in Treblinka, in Sobibor or elsewhere, that's secondary."

And in response to the objection that the Federal Criminal Police Office had proven the SS ID card to be fake:

"We are relying on our own expert reports and consider them no less convincing than before."[10]

But German authorities also played a strange game where the forged Trawniki ID card was concerned. For example, the Münchner Merkur reported that the Federal Chancellery itself saw to it that the Demjanjuk defense team did not learn of the German expert reports by Lehner and the German Federal Criminal Police Office [Bundeskriminalamt, BKA], and that the latter was ordered from higher-up to keep silent about its findings. And what is more: the expert witness from the BKA who did ultimately take the stand in the Jerusalem Court after all, had been instructed by the German authorities to draw up a partial report for this trial, dealing exclusively with certain similarities between the retouched ID card photo and John Demjanjuk's real-life features. In this way the impression was evoked in the Jerusalem Trial that the ID card was genuine. The partial report was submitted by BKA expert Dr. Altmann. In a memo he drew up at that time, BKA Department Chief Dr. Werner described these actions of the German authorities thus:

"Clearly, factual doubts had to be subordinate to the political considerations."[11]

It has turned out that the photograph on the ID card is an old photo of Demjanjuk from 1947 which was taken from his American immigration file(!) and retouched for the ID card.

When the first doubts were raised about the authenticity of the heretofore unknown ID card, the Jerusalem Court suddenly had several other specimens of identical make on hand; the origin of these cards, which were also fabrications, has not been determined.[9]

The supposition that the KGB might have officially fabricated the ID card is largely refuted by the poor quality of the fabrication and by the ignorance, shown by the card, of the administrative structure of that branch of the police that was responsible for issuing this kind of ID card, as expert Lehner was able to demonstrate convincingly.[9] This does not, however, rule out that a certain circle within the KGB contributed to the fabrication of the card, a circle which must also have had connections to the American immigration authorities, where the photo originated. These circles are in all probability identical to those who worked from the start to set Demjanjuk up as Ivan the Terrible in order to revitalize the Holocaust Religion.

The proceedings to expatriate Demjanjuk began in 1981 before the Cleveland District Court. Naturally, five survivors of Treblinka recognized Demjanjuk as Ivan the Terrible, and the Court's copies of the Trawniki ID card No. 1393 became the chief piece of evidence on whose basis judge Battisti stripped Demjanjuk of his American citizenship.[12]

On the request of Israel, deportation proceedings began in 1984, and the deportation itself followed in February 1986, in violation of all traditions of international law, as the alleged site of the crime (Treblinka) was located in Poland, and at a time when the state of Israel did not yet even exist. How very important this Trawniki ID card was to the OSI in this trial is demonstrated by the fact that the OSI, together with Israeli authorities, attempted to persuade a number of witnesses to confirm the authenticity of this fabricated card against their better knowledge.[13]

http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndtreb.html
And,
The chief witness for the prosecution in the Jerusalem Trial, Eliahu Rosenberg, had stated in Vienna on December 24, 1947, in a "fact report" whose twelve pages he had each initialed personally, that the Ukrainian Ivan had been clubbed to death in his sleep.[16] When Demjanjuk's defense attorney Dov Eitan pointed out to Rosenberg during the Jerusalem Trial that John Demjanjuk, present there in the courtroom, could not be Ivan the Terrible, since according to his - Rosenberg's - own testimony Ivan was already dead since 1943, Rosenberg said that this had been a misunderstanding on the part of the secretary recording his report at the time, and that he had had only third-hand knowledge of the death of Ivan the Terrible. The secretary in question, T. Friedman, refused to testify on this issue, since Jewish sources had threatened him with death in the event that he were to confirm that Rosenberg had really reported the death of Ivan the Terrible as his own personal experience at the time in question.[17] Clearly, therefore, Rosenberg had really affirmed Ivan's death under oath.
Perfectly okay in Nessie's world, I'm sure. :mrgreen:
One more...
One rather strange event took place in Jerusalem on November 29, 1988. On November 20, 1988, Demjanjuk's attorney, Dov Eitan, had received a comprehensive report from the subject expert for the defense, a report which proved conclusively that the chief piece of evidence against Demjanjuk, the Trawniki ID card, was a fabrication. For the December 4, 1988, appeal date Eitan had announced a surprise for the Jerusalem Court, but mysteriously fell out of a 15th story window of the Eilon Hotel on November 29, 1988.[20] Dov Eitan's (un?)timely death was never solved. At his funeral, the second defense attorney was attacked by someone who threw acid in his face.[21]

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 23 guests