Auschwitz Trial

The 1946 Cracow Auschwitz Trial. In 1945, the Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research (Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych) prepared a report on a forensic investigation of Auschwitz that was submitted in evidence in the 1946 Auschwitz trial in Cracow, Poland.74 This expert report should be treated with caution, because forensic examinations and judicial procedures under the Communists have been anything but trustworthy, and in 1945, Poland was a Stalinist satellite. One need only point to the example of Katyn, the Soviet account of which was fully endorsed by Poland s Communist regime.73... 

For a clarification of the evidence problems, an extract from the judgment of the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial may be quoted here 83... 

According, for example to the testimony of M. Buki in the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial see H. Langbein, Der Auschwitz-Prozefi, op. cit. (note 465), p. 96. 

It was intended from the beginning that the expert report arising lfom this request of Remer s attorney would be published. It is unusual to publish expert reports from judicial proceedings, but it does happen when the subject is of public interest. Expert reports drawn up for several trials against supposed National Socialist war criminals, for example, were later made available to a wide public for educational purposes. The Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial is a prime example of this. The expert reports produced during this trial by scientists at the Institut fur Zeitgeschichte were later published as a collection.545... 

Also, Remer s statement that the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial had de-... 

This piece of evidence made the State Attorney roar. "This piece of evidence is an insult to the victims , he yelled into the courtroom with a red face. Herrmann replied, Then your victims were insulted by the decision in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt, Herr State Attorney. Most of what I have just read are observations of the court in the great Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt. You can read them in the decision. At this the State Attorney was speechless. It is peculiar, how a State Attorney can free himself from almost any evidentiary difficulty with only two magical words common knowledge . He knew nothing about the decision in the National Socialist trials and he knew next to nothing about historical connections or physical facts. All a state attorney needs in such a case is to be able to pronounce the words, denied on account of common knowledge. ... 

The court refused to accept this evidence. That is, it refused to accept whole passages from the decision in the Auschwitz trial in Frankfurt as well as passages from the writings of survivors such as Lang-bein. Naturally, on account of common knowledge . 

A classic example of this is the verdict of the Auschwitz-Trial in Frankfurt (Ref. 50/4 ICs 2/63, p. 108ff.), which saw itself forced to admit that it lacked almost all the means of evidence available in a normal murder trial71, including the bodies of the victims, autopsy reports, expert reports on the cause and time of death, [...] evidence as to the criminals, murder weapons, etc."... 

After refusing for years to examine and make use of the archives of the Eastern Bloc,149 the Federal German government finally overcame its reluctance in the wake of the 1964 Auschwitz Trial, and appealed to all nations of the world to make as much documentation about National Socialist crimes available to Germany as possible. Some parties even demanded that a European Legal... 

Regarding the Auschwitz Trial B. Naumann, Auschwitz, Athenaum, Frankfurt/Main 1968, pp. 67f., 132. 

Cf. A. Riickerl, op. cit. (note 34), pp. 263ft In the Auschwitz Trial, for ex., there were 23 defendants and more than... 

If Latemser is correct, then it is also a point for concern that the prosecution in the Auschwitz Trial failed to comply with its duty ( 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) to also search for evidence that would exonerate the accused.196 Chief prosecutor Grabitz s comment regarding the responsibility of the prosecution in cases where a defendant plays down or denies the crimes he is charged with is rather revealing in this instance ... 

In the major international criminal trials in which I participated, there was never as much tension as in the Auschwitz Trial - not even at the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, 204... 

The Frankfurt Auschwitz trial was an exception, as these procedings were taped, but exclusively for the judges. The defense did never get eacces to these tapes, nor did the prosecution. 

In the Auschwitz Trial, witness Bernhard Walter, whose testimony was not to the prosecution s liking, was placed under arrest until he had revised his statements.280 It is clear that such actions by the Court cannot but have intimidated witnesses. But Lichtenstein merely fumes that despite all this some witnesses were still so insolent as to continue to deny everything.281 German defense witnesses for the criminal side who were willing to testily for Adolf Eichmann in the Jerusalem trial... 

A particularly devastating example is that of Oswald Kaduk, one of the accused in the Auschwitz Trial, a very simple soul. He was badgered so dreadfully that he suffered a nervous breakdown,303 attempted during his trial to refute even testimony in his favor,304 and ultimately said with resignation,... 

Anyone who would like to recreate for himself Kaduk s complete mental confusion is referred to Demant s interviews with him and two other convicts of the Auschwitz Trial.299 Anyone who reads them attentively will all but trip over this scandalous travesty of justice. 

---