Friday, December 19, 2014

The "Disappeared" Defence Witness at the Belsen Trial

While searching on Revisionist sites for any tiny straw to support a possible conspiracy for what they call the "hoax", I came across the blog posting Defence witness disappears from Belsen trial from

"Far more important than the absence of a witness is the fact that witnesses are not going to testify because they have been in conversation with witnesses for the Prosecution. If that be the case the Court will have to do something about it."





"From the evidence it appeared that the usual grounds for inferring people had been gassed was that they disappeared, but the same thing would have happened if they had been sent away to a factory or to another camp. With regard to Block 25, it might well have been that that block was used as a staging block for any party that was to leave the camp after a selection"
For the record, if sick or emaciated Jews were selected in Auschwitz and sent away, then certainly not "to a factory or another camp", but as useless eaters straight to the extermination sites.

23 comments:

Nathan said...

All deniers are liars by nature. I'd have to say that this idiot is a special case though. Other deniers are just malicious, like Zuendel. This one is just plain stupid.

He's tried this same nonsense before, on one of your blogs as well. i.e., he wrote the following:

- - But in the meantime:

"I once saw DPs beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?"

- Benjamin B. Ferencz, Romanian born, Jewish American lawyer. Chief US prosecutor at the
Einsatzgruppen Trial. -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072101680_5.html-

Of course, if one were to scroll down further, one would then see the following:

- The overwhelming majority of the lower-level SS guards did in fact escape justice.-

- Ferencz prosecuted members of the Einsatzgruppen. "There were 3,000 members of these killing squads who did nothing but kill women and children for three straight years," he says. "These 3,000 men alone were responsible for almost 1 million murders. Do you know how many I brought indictments against? Twenty-two. The rest were never tried.-

Illiterate, or lying?

The deniers' entire fantasy is built on the premise that this idiot is trying to sell. Of course he'd lie to sell it. No "show trials"/"torture", no evil Jewish conspiracy and therefore, the German defendants who admitted to their crimes were being as honest as they could be. Unfortunately for this loser and the rest of his trash, this is exactly what happened.

Thanks, Hans' for exposing another of this idiot's lies.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Actually, the scope of the blog entry, which Hans quoted the 'vast' entirety of, was simply to present the article as a snapshot in time with minimal commentary. Hans, who is familiar enough with me to have christened me Lesser Bunny, knows this of course: that at the time I obviously presented a series of single articles and their description, and it would have been outside the scope to correct them or provide a detailed background, as much as it would have been difficult to do so for all 668 entries that year. Either that, or Hans is significantly less bright than my typical reader.

Hans' deceptions are obviously geared towards dummies like Nathan, who is too daft to know that multiple EG members were tried by German courts.
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Diensteng.htm#t3



"... two Jews told me it would have been better not to have come as a witness. Then I said, " Well, I came to give evidence in favour of Hössler," and I carried on coming down to the Court and they followed me, and then I went back to Hannover again."

"I was afraid of the Jews, being the only German here as a witness."

- Erika Schopf



The further details I posted on this issue eluded Hans' attention:
https://rodoh.info/forum/viewtopic.php?p=34617#p34617

Nathan said...

- - But in the meantime:

"I once saw DPs beat an SS man and then strap him to the steel gurney of a crematorium. They slid him in the oven, turned on the heat and took him back out. Beat him again, and put him back in until he was burnt alive. I did nothing to stop it. I suppose I could have brandished my weapon or shot in the air, but I was not inclined to do so. Does that make me an accomplice to murder?"

- Benjamin B. Ferencz, Romanian born, Jewish American lawyer. Chief US prosecutor at the
Einsatzgruppen Trial. -

-Hans' deceptions are obviously geared towards dummies like Nathan, who is too daft to know that multiple EG members were tried by German courts.
http://www1.jur.uva.nl/junsv/brd/Diensteng.htm#t3

Illiterate it is, then.

STOP TRYING TO THINK. YOU CAN'T THINK.

Thanks again, Hans. This is the best laugh I've had in a while. Hope you enjoy your holidays and that the trash doesn't get you down.

Jonathan Harrison said...

We should clarify that Schopf was not afraid because she was being intimidated against giving testimony but because she was vulnerable to accusations that she had beaten prisoners. Her testimony sought to exonerate the defendant but did not deny that she witnessed gassing. From the transcript:

COLONEL BACKHOUSE: Were you a forewoman yourself in a Kommando? - Yes.

On Saturday when you were here in Lüneburg did not some women come to you and tell you that they were going to report you to the police because you beat them when you were at Auschwitz? - It was not on Saturday; it was Monday.

Did they not try to find a policeman to arrest you? - Yes.

It is true, is it not, that you beat quite a lot of people while you were in Auschwitz? - No, it is not true.

Were the women in your Kommando mainly Jews? - They were Poles and Jews.

Was it not the habit at Auschwitz to choose a German woman as far as possible and put her over Poles and Jews or to choose a Russian and put her over Poles, or to choose a Pole and put her over Russians? - I cannot say.

Were the girls who stopped you in Lüneburg in your Kommando at one time? - Those two, yes.

They did not know anything about you being a witness when they stopped you, did they; their complaint was that you were a forewoman who had beaten them? - Yes, that is what they said but I did not beat them.

Let us turn now to the selections. As a German and forewoman you did not have to go on the selections at all, did you? - No.

Who had to attend the selections? - Only the Jews.

It was quite easy to tell when there was a selection for the gas chamber, was it not, because only Jews had to parade? - Yes.

Have you seen these selection parades taking place? - I saw it from Block No. 19 when we were working there bricklaying.

How often have you seen one? - Once.

Jeff said...

Some "Witch Trial" eh?

Where defence witnesses are protected and defence attorneys are so aggressive that they warrant public backlash.

The Belsen trials were a model of judicial fairness.

The character of Hoessler and Kramer's defenses are a telling piece of evidence against denial.

Hans does it again. The man is ON FIRE.

Jeff said...

"the policy of my government was to exterminate Jews"

- Josef Kramer, at the Belsen Trial.

There you go, right from the horses mouth.

Most people in his situation who ad legitimately been wrongfully caused would have shouted from the rooftops that they were innocent and that the crimes had not happened. The fact that Murdering Nazis continued to use the "following orders" defence into the sixties and seventies despite its repeated failures is telling.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

J. Harrision wrote:

"We should clarify that Schopf was not afraid because she was being intimidated against giving testimony but because she was vulnerable to accusations that she had beaten prisoners."

I should clarify that Harrison has lied.

Schopf states that she was threatened by Jewish prosecution witnesses because she intended to testified in defence of one of the accused; no where does Schopf state that she ran off because she was afraid of accusations being made against her.

She returned to the trial twice more after the threats against her—on the third occasion she was given a military police escort. Why would she have sought police protection to enable her to testify if she was simply afraid of accusations being levelled at her? Military policemen could not have protected her from those.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

"The Belsen trials were a model of judicial fairness." - Jeff


Ilse Foerster was convicted to 10 years imprisonment at the Belsen trial.

The evidenced presented against her was contained in:

Affidavits, by Regina Bialek and Hilda Lippman (which obviously couldn't be crossed examined and would be admissible in a British or American criminal trial), and the testimony of Sophia Litwinska.

Litwinska and Bialek both claimed they were partially gassed at Birkenau; they both swore to have rescued from a homicidal gas chamber mid-gassing.

Hilda Lippman claimed that Ilse Foerster beat prisoners with a rubber truncheon if she caught them stealing from the Belsen kitchen.


Foerster received a 10 year sentence on the basis of the say-so of two proven liars and and allegations contained in affidavit from someone who couldn't be cross-examined by her defence counsel.

"The Belsen trials were a model of judicial fairness." - Jeff


You'd soon change you view if you or any of your family members were tried in a similar manner.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Try again:

"On Saturday when you were here in Lüneburg did not some women come to you and tell you that they were going to report you to the police because you beat them when you were at Auschwitz? - It was not on Saturday; it was Monday.

Did they not try to find a policeman to arrest you? - Yes."

http://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/TrialTranscript/Trial_Day_024.html

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

Actually, it's you that needs to try again, or perhaps just concede that you're mistaken.

Schopf fled from Lüneburg on the day she was due to testify, Thursday, October 11th; following threats from Jewish prosecution witnesses.

What relevance does what happened on Saturday, or Monday, have to do with it that?

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

I see my response to Jeff (posted shortly after my second comment) didn't pass the censor. Probably all the facts that it contained were offensive to the mod.

Jonathan Harrison said...

The threats actually occurred the previous Monday, October 8th, according to her testimony, and were related to accusations that she beat prisoners at Auschwitz.

Jonathan Harrison said...

I didn't delete any post. If another mod did, I'm not aware of it.

Jonathan Harrison said...

Letter written by Schopf 4/10/45:

"The JUDGE ADVOCATE - I will read this postcard to the Court: "Translation of the postcard written by Erika Schopf of Schulz, Burgdorf, L/Hanover [Hannover], Spitalstrasse No. 12 C/Mohle, dated 4th October, 1945. My dear Court people, I have read in the papers about the Belsen and Auschwitz trial, and I have to inform you of the fact that Hoessler is unguilty. He has not made selections and when Jews were sent to the gas chamber Hoessler has always tried to get them out of this. I have been for three years in Auschwitz and I have worked in the Mason Kommando that was established by Hoessler. I know also the female Dr. Enna. She is a very bad type and has been very cruel to prisoners. Please tell me when I am able to come to Lüneburg With kind regards, Erika Schopf." (Exhibit No. 123.)"

She acknowledged gas chambers when she volunteered to give testimony.

http://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/Trial/Trial/TrialDefenceCase/Trial_030_Hoessler.html

Jonathan Harrison said...

The only timeline that makes sense is:

Thurs Oct 4th: Schopf writes to the court that "He has not made selections and when Jews were sent to the gas chamber Hoessler has always tried to get them out of this." The postcard also accuses another German, Dr. Enna, of cruelty.

Sat Oct 6th-Mon 8th: She comes to see the defence attorney but two Jews threaten her that they will say she beat prisoners

Thurs 11th: She shows up to testify but is again threatened, probably this time with menaces, presumably because the Jews do want her to giving mitigating testimony for the defendant, even though she's already admitted to gassing taking place at Auschwitz. She flees.

Sat 13th: She returns, with armed protection, and gives the same testimony she did on the postcard.

I am totally clueless as to how this can be spun as supporting a conspiracy to stop Schopf denying the gas chambers or indeed of trying to excuse the Germans as a whole, given that her card had accused Enna of cruelty.

The Black Rabbit of Inlé said...

JH: The threats actually occurred the previous Monday, October 8th, according to her testimony, and were related to accusations that she beat prisoners at Auschwitz.

Thursday, October 11th, 1945:

MAJOR MUNRO: I had intended to call another witness for this accused named Schopf. She came along to the Court and I saw her, but she has since disappeared, I understand, after having talked with certain of the Prosecution witnesses.



Saturday, October 13th, 1945:

MAJOR MUNRO: Do you remember speaking to me? - (SCHOPF:)Yes.

Do you remember being told to come back to the Court later that day? - Yes.

Will you please tell the Court in your own words what happened after you left me?...

(... Interruption by prosecutor, not quoted here)

MAJOR MUNRO: Will you please tell the Court in your own words what happened after you left me? - (SCHOPF:) I went to the barracks and two Jews told me it would have been better not to have come as a witness. Then I said, " Well, I came to give evidence in favour of Hössler," and I carried on coming down to the Court and they followed me, and then I went back to Hannover again. Then I went to Burgdorf and reported to Captain Martin about this incident. He told me to get back to 905 Military Government and to come to the Court guarded by British guards.



It is perfectly clear, not just what Schopf stated during her testimony on the 13th, but from what Major Munro stated on the 11th and 13th, that the threats and resulting disappearance happened on the 11th.

Incidentally, your dating of Schopf's "letter" (recte: postcard) is wrong; she never dated it. The postcard is stamped in blue ink on the content side: "4. Okt. 1945", but it was likely stamped by officials at the Belsen trial on it's arrival "An das Gericht in Lüneburg", which is how she addressed it. There is part of a postal-service stamp on the address side, but it appears as if someone might have peeled off the postage stamp and taken with it the date. (see UK NA: WO 235/21, Exhibit 123)


JH I am totally clueless as to how this can be spun as supporting a conspiracy to stop Schopf denying the gas chambers or indeed of trying to excuse the Germans as a whole,

The only person to have ever associated Schopf's disappearance with an alleged conspiracy about silencing gas chamber denial, is you, Jonathan Harrison. Meaning, you're in the straw man business.

Roberto Muehlenkamp said...

«I didn't delete any post. If another mod did, I'm not aware of it.»

No post was deleted. This moderator happened to leave home for a weekend trip after publishing rabbit's post of Friday, January 02, 2015 1:43:00 am, and only saw and published rabbit's subsequent post of January 02, 2015 2:04:00 am after returning yesterday from his weekend trip.

Jonathan Harrison said...

"The only person to have ever associated Schopf's disappearance with an alleged conspiracy about silencing gas chamber denial, is you, Jonathan Harrison. Meaning, you're in the straw man business."

So what was the point of your article? Two Jews had a beef against the defendant so tried to muscle this woman into not giving mitigating testimony. Hold the front page! The point surely is that the court pulled out all the stops to ensure that she did eventually give her testimony, which did not deviate from her original entirely voluntary offering on the postcard.

Jeff said...

Hey Hans, I know this may be random, but many deniers harp on the fact that Kramer used the term Gas Chamber in singular form at the Belden Trial, despite the obvious documentary fact that there were multiple chambers. Former guard Jacob Wendell did the same thing in 2014.

I would greatly appreciate it if you or someone else here could shoot it down before it spreads to become a oft-repeated denier meme (like the utterly stupid "controversy" surrounding the type of engines used at the AR camps).
If you cannot or will not I understand.

Hans said...

Hi Jeff,

can you give me a linky or reference where some deniers make this argument, so I can look into it? Thanks!

Hans said...

I see the argument was made by Fauri:

"Quant à Auschwitz, ce qu'en dit Kramer est tout à fait vague en matière de "chambres à gaz" et, pour commencer, il ne parle que d'une "chambre à gaz" à Auschwitz-Birkenau là où, selon la légende officielle, il y avait au moins quatre "chambres à gaz"."

http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/archFaur/1980-1985/RF80xxx4.html

Jeff said...

I looked into it and it seems that he refers to them in proper plural a number of times as well. I think it might be a translation thing.

Jeff said...

It was also used by Irvine as I recall