[Return] [Bottom]
  • Grant - Witness for defense re Trawniki ID card
  • Pollzien - Witness for defense re Streibel
  • Wagenaar - Witness for defense re eye-witness memory

    Witnesses for defense in transcripts11.html

    (Jerusalem, Feb. 16, 1987 - Apr. 24, 1988)
    SUMMARY of English-language TRANSCRIPTS

    Julius Grant; T009449 - 9823; 1987/11/09 - 11; Vol. 16
    [1987/11/09, Mon.; T009449, Vol. 16; Grant]
    [Top] [1987/11/09] [1987/11/10] [1987/11/11] [Bottom]

    T009449 - Direct examination of Julius Grant by Yoram Sheftel
    - Born 1901-10-19, London, England
    - Strand School, Kings College; University of London, Honours Chemistry (1921), Ph.D. in poisonous metals (1926); 65 years of experience
    - wrote 29 books on forensic science subjects; expert on paper and forgery; during WWII identifying poisonous and toxic materials
    - left pulp and paper company in 1951, acquired forensic lab, and continues to present
    - a great number of court appearances - fingerprints, papers, ink; Mussolini Diaries, Archbishop Makarios, fake Hitler Diaries (which many handwriting experts declared authentic); Royal Society of Chemistry

    T009484 - Nun/91 = curriculum vitae of Dr. Julius Grant
    T009485 - Grant: "You cannot identify a person with certainty from his handwriting."
    T009486f - (1) Highly probable = 99% certainty
    - (2) Probable = greater than 50% certainty
    - (3) Could be of common authorship = less than 50% possible
    - (4) Common authorship is unlikely = less than 1% possible
    - (5) Material is inadequate

    T009489 - Grant: "A photocopy is seldom, if ever, a 100% reliable type of material to use in this system."

    T009490 - Grant: "That is the reason I came here last July [?, 1987] to see the original of the questioned documents in this case, of course."

    T009492 - Grant re "unlikely": "A negative opinion is a negative opinion. There are no degrees of negation."

    T009493f - Sheftel wants to submit a list of documents Grant examined in Israel in early Sept., 1987, but Shaked objects. Levin rules that since Grant has the list anyway, it need not be submitted officially.

    T009499f - Streibel signature
    - Grant examined tav/145 = album of Streibel's signatures - originals, photographs, photocopies.

    T009505 - Despite the extra loop in the first "e", Grant finds that common authorship of the Streibel signature is highly probable. [99%]

    T009508f - Reference to two rust lines as seen in nun/53, p6, of Edna Robertson's expert opinion.
    T009509 - Grant: "That doesn't prove that the parallel brown lines are due to a paper clip, but a paper clip is a possible -- indeed a likely possibility."
    - "And this showed the handwriting [Streibel signature] to be over the brown line."

    T009510 - Testing a sample of the brown spot with potassium thyocyanide produced a red color indicating that iron was present [i.e. it is really rust].

    T009512f - Teufel signature
    - Would put Teufel signature in category of probable (greater than 50%)
    - Does not have enough original standards and there are discrepancies amongst some of those.

    T009517f - Demjanjuk signature
    - Grant: "I think that common authorship is unlikely." (i.e. less than 1%)

    T009518f - Sheftel had Grant examine the signature in a letter sent by Mr. Demjanjuk to his niece in the Soviet Union on September 18, 1977. Since the original is in the Soviet Union, this is a photostat (not photocopy?) "which the OSI has".
    - [It is not clear if this photostat was made by Mr. Demjanjuk himself or whether the OSI was already monitoring and photographing his mail at that time. Or was it supplied by the Soviet Union?]
    - Shaked objects because "We did not have a copy of this document, of course."
    - [WHY NOT? The OSI should have supplied it.]

    T009522 - Sheftel: This document "is fully known to my learned colleague [Shaked] before we even learned of its existence..."

    T009523 - Sheftel: "... the defense in its present composition didn't know anything about this document at the time [when Demjanjuk was testifying]. ... we only became aware of it a few weeks ago."
    - [Implication is that O'Connor knew about it.]

    T009526 - Sheftel: "Before we handed this document to the witness [Grant], we showed it to the accused [Demjanjuk] and the accused confirmed ..."

    T009527 - "Secondly, this document has been endorsed, has been confirmed by a body which the prosecution regards as credible, the archives in the Soviet Union. It is a document which has been endorsed."
    - "It is the procurator of Neitze [Vinnytsia?] Oblast, it says."

    T009528 - Levin postpones consideration of this signature and has Grant testify on other aspects of the signature.

    T009529f - Grant gives detailed testimony
    - No other "D" like that. - In the signature in tav/149 there are no pen lifts (except for the initial capital D); whereas all the others have multiple pen lifts.
    - The letter "m" is exceptional.
    - There is no initial "I" before the surname, as in all the other signatures. - Came to the final conclusion that it is "unlikely" (i.e. less than 1% probability) that it is a genuine Demjanjuk signature.

    T009539 - MISSING
    T009540 - Nun/92 = Demjanjuk's letter written in Russian(?) to niece, 1977-09-18
    T009541 - Signature on nun/92 is similar to the ones taken by Israeli police.
    - Sheftel: "I understand the signature is important in another respect - will you please tell us what it is?"

    T009543 - Grant: "I am sorry I can't."
    - [W.Z. I do not understand why not?]
    - Grant: "In my opinion they are not written by the same person."

    T009544-45 - MISSING
    T009549 - MISSING
    T009550 - Grant re the greyish-green paper of the 4 ID cards: "The fibres represented in this exhibit [tav/149] and indeed in the other 3 cards [tav/222, 223, 224] are all the same , in the same proportions, and in my view could have been made at the same time and in the same factory.
    - Tav/222, 223, 224 - "Two of them have photographs attached to them and one is not."

    T009552 - Albert Leiter related by phone that he could not find any rag in the paper, "mainly ground pulp."

    T009553 - Sheftel re Dr. Cantu: "He testified here, but his expert opinion was not submitted."
    - [W.Z. Why not?]
    - Sheftel wants it submitted but is disallowed.

    T009564f - Re staple holes in photograph in tav/149.
    T009568 - Grant states that the holes are consistent with being produced by a staple, but "there is no indication of whether the staple was pushed in from the back to the front or the front to the back."

    T009569 - Sheftel refers to tests performed by Grant on Friday [Nov. 6, 1987] in the presence of people from the prosecution, the results of which Sheftel phoned to Shaked Saturday night.

    T009570 - Sheftel says Grant was not allowed to perform these tests in early Sept. [6 and 7, 1987].
    T009574 - Levin rules that until a written supplemental expert opinion is submitted to prosecution, Grant cannot testify on the additional tests he performed on Nov. 6, 1987.

    T009575f - Sheftel asks for Grant's final conclusions, and after objections by Shaked and admonishment by Levin not to include results of last Friday's tests, Grant states:
    T009580: "I consider that the test I did on Friday is very vital to my final conclusion" and therefore "I cannot".

    T009582f - Shaked cross-examination of Grant
    T009583f - Re rust lines from paper clip and paper clips for the rest of the day.
    - For the next 8 pages Shaked berates Grant for saying the lines are parallel even though on page T009509 Grant had said
    "-- almost, but not quite, parallel with the one I've already referred to."

    T009588 - Shaked makes it clear that he is trying to undermine Grant's credibility as an expert witness because of his lax use of the word parallel; whereas Grant says he was using them in the context of a paper clip.

    T009592f - Grant used Robertson's nun/53, page 11 illustration to check his thesis.

    Julius Grant; T009609 - 9726; 1987/11/10; Vol. 16
    [1987/11/10, Tue.; T009609, Vol. 16; Grant]
    [Top] [1987/11/09] [1987/11/10] [1987/11/11] [Bottom]

    T009609 - Sheftel: "... we have provided a written expert opinion to supplement the original one."
    - identical to what Sheftel told Shaked on Oct. 16, 1987 by phone.
    - [W.Z. Sheftel's repeated phone calls to Shaked are getting rather suspicious.]

    T009610 - Levin chides Sheftel that this information should have been included in the original expert opinion with the proviso that it be confirmed by the Nov. 6, 1987 test.

    T009611 - Sheftel: "... my learned colleague [Shaked] knows full well the results of these tests, in fact he knows what Leiter found."
    - "Sarabar and Eli Gabi ... stood there and observed his work very closely ... and he told them what the results were right then and there."

    T009614 - Sheftel confirms that Shaked provided him with considerable assistance in preparing for the case.

    T009615f - Grant outlines the tests he did on Nov. 6, 1987, in the presence of Eli Gabi and others.
    - Grant took some ink out of the top staple hole did thin layer chromatography on it and showed that it was similar to the ink in the Russian handwriting. "... but the test is not conclusive."

    T009619 - Grant refers to tav/223 = Wolembachow with a picture which is not aligned and has obviously been replaced and tav/224 = Bondarenko which has no picture but has remnants of weak glue.

    T009620 - Grant concludes: "The following taken together suggests a view that the photograph on tav/149 was not originally on that document."

    T009624 - Grant: "If I could supplement what I've said, I feel that if it was possible to remove the photograph, one might clear up a lot of these controversial points. But I can't talk about things that I haven't done."

    T009625 - Sheftel: "Would this be the service pass of the accused or not?"
    - Grant: "The indications are that it would not."
    - "I'd like to add that I am greatly influenced by the signature, which I have already discussed and found to be -- believe not to be that of the accused."

    T009627 - Shaked continues cross-examination of Grant on the paper clip.
    - Shaked had given Grant an article which indicated that "Gem" paper clips were first patented in 1902, were in wide use in the United States and Europe by the 1930s, and so should have been present in Trawniki in 1942, contrary to what Sheftel had claimed.

    T009629 - Shaked: "... in the rogatory of Rudolf Reis in Germany, Mr. Sheftel proposes to prove that such paper clips did not exist at the time."
    - [W.Z. Should say "such paper clips were not used in Trawniki in 1942".]

    T009642 - Tav/273 - 1973 article by Denny Morris, Ronald Morris re history of paper clips.
    T009645 - Tav/274 = paper clip, which Grant was questioned about.
    T009647 - Shaked claims to "finding traces of rust and paper clips" on tav/224 = Bondarenko.
    - Grant: "It's not a straight line." "... cannot exclude the possibility that it was produced by a paper clip."
    - Shaked asks Grant to look at it in afternoon and evening and testify the next day.

    T009652 - Sheftel points out that prosecution was always present when defense did their tests, but
    - "At no stage was the defense present at the time tests for the prosecution were carried out."
    - Levin: "We overrule the objection."

    T009654f - Re Hitler Diaries, May 6, 1983
    T009662 - Tav/265 = Photograph of article in London Times, May 7, 1983 re Hitler Diaries
    - Tav/266 = Photostat of article in Sunday Times, May 8, 1983 re Hitler Diaries
    - Shaked implies that the forgery had already been declared in Germany before Grant's determination.

    T009664f - Shaked refers to a case where Grant asked forgery suspect to recreate a signature while holding heavy tools in one hand.
    - Shaked next postulates that this is what happened with the Demjanjuk signature
    - Despite Sheftel's objections Levin allows the question.

    T009672 - Levin summarizes Shaked's question: "If one hypothesizes that the person signing was standing there with his arms full of gear, next to the quartermaster's counter with soldiers waiting in line and he was being asked to sign -- that's your hypothesis?"

    T009673 - Grant: "This signature, questioned signature, could not possibly have been made under the conditions you postulate. Because the person making it, could never have written it neatly along a dotted line."

    T009675f - Grant arrived in Israel on Friday, Sept. 4, 1987. He and Sheftel met with Shaked and head at Jerusalem police laboratories. Arranged to view documents on Sunday and Monday, Sept. 6 -7, 1987.

    T009677f - Grant examined originals tav/149, 222, 223, 224, 99, 100, 101
    - [These are the 4 Trawniki ID cards and presumably documents which include Streibel signatures.]
    - Also saw tav/21 = Demjanjuk's driver's license; did not see tav/148.

    T009686 - In addition to tav/149, Teufel's signature appears on tav/223, 224 and Streibel's signature appears on tav/224 = Bondarenko
    - Grant had regarded the signatures on the 3 new Trawniki ID cards as authentic, as pointed out by Levin

    T009688f - Shaked tackles the proposition that Streibel's signature is over top of the rust lines.
    - Grant came to this conclusion as a result of microscopic examination and infra red radiation.
    - Shaked chides Grant for not providing photographic evidence of this result to the court.
    - Dorner states that the VSC machine can be set up in court to demonstrate this.
    - Shaked accepts proposal of the court.
    - [W.Z. This reads very much like the ambush set up for Robertson.]

    T009697f - Shaked asks what Grant would do if after categorizing a signature as "unlikely", the accused insists that it is really his signature.
    - Grant says that he would try to get more standards and/or have the person provide general writing samples which contain characteristics of his signature.
    - Shaked keeps trying but Levin tells him to move on.

    T009704f - Shaked next tackles the D in the Demjanjuk signature.
    - Shaked claims that Demjanjuk's statement in the U.S., "It is like I write my name" [referring to the spelling] implies that he confessed that it was his signature.

    T009798 - Grant finally says: "If what I have been told is correct, then my deduction that this signature was not written by the accused loses an element of certainty."

    T009710 - Shaked next turns to TLC = thin layer chromatography.
    - Shaked seems to chide Grant for not bringing the required chemicals from Britain.
    - In September, 1987 "there was a certain amount of argument as to whether I should remove the trace of red matter from the hole, I have been referring to in this photograph."

    T009716f - Shaked discusses categorization of highly probable, probable, could be and unlikely.
    - Grant proposed these at conferences in 1975, to help juries understand the issue.
    - Presumably, highly probable = beyond a reasonable doubt
    - Shaked quibbles about the difference between unlikely and most unlikely.

    Julius Grant; T009727 - 9823; 1987/11/11; Vol. 16
    [1987/11/11, Wed.; T009727, Vol. 16; Grant]
    [Top] [1987/11/09] [1987/11/10] [1987/11/11] [Bottom]

    T009727 - Shaked questions about tav/149 upper-staple-hole results.
    - Shaked goes through a long series of hypotheses -- that the photograph fell off, was stapled onto another piece of paper, was reglued onto the ID card, ink was placed in the two holes [presumably by Bazilevskaya]

    T009739 - Dorner: "Of course the Cyrillic writing was undoubtedly done in the Soviet Union and this is the ink, and of course was done in Russia too."
    - [W.Z. There is no basis for this conclusion, except that there are more Russians in the Soviet Union than any other place. Without a CHAIN OF CUSTODY, this question cannot be answered.]

    T009740 - Grant: "I think another explanation might well be revealed if one could see what was on the back of this photograph."

    T009744f - Shaked concludes by referring to Grant's reluctance to give conclusion without considering the tests he performed on Friday, Nov. 6, 1987, which had nothing to do with the Demjanjuk signature.
    - [The implication is that Grant's categorizing the Demjanjuk signature as unlikely is insufficient to designate the total card as a forgery.]

    T009748f - Sheftel re-direct examination of Grant.
    - Grant agrees that it is more likely than not that the ink in the upper staple hole is the same as the Russian handwriting.

    T0097450f - Discussion of tav/222, 223, 224.
    - Two photographs, no staple holes, but 2 large holes [in tav/223 = Wolembachow]

    T009752 - Tal: "These are large circular holes of a punch hole for the purpose of filing."
    - [W.Z. They do look like punch holes, but not for filing purposes.]

    T009756f - Sheftel discusses the purple Russian writing and the purple ink in the staple holes
    - possibilities that this ink seeped in from the back, was inadvertent, was deliberate.

    T009761 - Sheftel suggests another hypothesis that this ink was placed in the holes just before being sent to Israel to hide writing on back.
    - [W.Z. If this is the case, then it is more likely that the purpose of placing the purple ink in the holes is to create the impression that it was done at the same time as Bazilevskaya wrote her comments in 1948, and thus create the impression that this is the original photograph also from that time.]

    T009763f - Sheftel returns to the Streibel signature over top of the rust lines
    - Grant says he made a bigger sketch the night before; Levin rules that the bigger sketch cannot be submitted, but the original small sketch can be submitted; because of Grant's reluctance Sheftel withdraws his request.

    T009770f - Sheftel refers to tav/193 containing "It is like I wrote my name."
    - Sheftel reads previous sentences where Demjanjuk denies that it is his signature.
    - Sheftel hammers home that the above quote refers to the spelling and must not be construed as an admission.

    T009779 - Grant: "The signature is one of the primary factors leading to the conclusion."
    - [i.e. that the signature was not written by Mr. Demjanjuk.]

    T009780f - Grant clarifies for Tal that infrared reflection occurs from the iron and not from the ink (which is on top).
    - Distance between the staple holes is consistent with present day staples.
    - Long discussion of variations in signatures and forgeries.
    - Grant also clarifies that he examined original signatures given him by the Israeli police as contained on page 14 of tav/145.

    T009788f - Original documents which Grant examined. Grant is asked to compile a list from his notes, which he does over a recess and hands in to court.
    - Long pointless discussion on the issue to try to discredit Grant's memory.
    - Acrimonious arguments between Sheftel and judges about all documents being controlled by prosecution and/or Police Headquarters.
    - Grant is forced to try to recall which documents he examined on Sept. 4, 6 and 7, 1987.
    - [W.Z. This was not done with the prosecution witnesses.]

    T009819 - Sheftel does a re-direct of Grant [again].
    - Sheftel tells Grant (for the benefit of the court) that all the documents given to him by Gabi at police headquarters were originals.

    T009822 - Nun/93 = list of exhibits Grant examined and which he drew up for the court and signed.

    T009823 - **** END of Grant testimony in Vol. 16 ****

    [W.Z. Summary: Despite his advanced age, Julius Grant did very well. Shaked's strategy seemed to be to belittle Grant's expertise by quibbling about the definition of parallel lines, paper clips and confusing Grant about which documents were original or photocopies.

    Grant's main points on the Trawniki ID card were:
    (1) The Demjanjuk signature is "unlikely" (less than 1% probability) of being authentic.
    (2) The Streibel signature (although "probably" authentic) is written on top of two rust lines presumably left by a paper clip.
    (3) The two staple holes (with purple ink therein) in the Demjanjuk photo indicate that it was not originally on the card.

    Although Shaked and the judges can be fairly accused of deliberately attacking Julius Grant (in a manner which was not permitted for the prosecution witnesses), Yoram Sheftel can also be accused of playing games.]

    T009823 - **** END of Grant testimony in Vol. 16 ****

    Goetz Pollzien; T009824 - 9855; 1987/11/12; Vol. 17
    [1987/11/12, Thu.; T009824, Vol. 17; Pollzien]
    [Top] [1987/11/12] [Bottom]

    T009824f - Dr. Goetz Pollzien (where oe = o with double dot over top)
    - born Liepzig, Germany in 1914; legal studies at University of Geneva, Switzerland (1935), Assessor Exam in Munich (1938); soldier in German Army during WWII; Ph.D. in Jurisprudence, University of Munich (1948), admitted to bar in Munich (1950).

    T009826 - Sheftel tries to question Pollzien about his involvement in the defense of Frank Walus, but Shaked objects strenuously and eventually Levin disallows the question [T009834] despite Sheftel's argumentation that the Walus case is very relevant to this trial.

    T009834 - Sheftel: "... in certain circumstances a person can be retried on the very same charge after having been found innocent of that charge."
    - [allusion to Streibel]

    T009836 - Pollzien - Point #4 of paragraph 362, Code of Criminal Procedure states: "Reopening is admissible if the person who has been acquitted makes a credible confession before a court or outside the court of the criminal act."
    - Since creation of Federal Republic of Germany in 1948, this point has never been used.
    - Utilized once in a fraud case in 1921 in Bavaria.

    T009842 - Nun/94 = pages from book referring to 1921 Bavaria case.
    T009843 - Nun/95 = pp. 63-64 of book on Section 362, Code of Criminal Procedure.
    T009845 - Nun/96 = article from 1886 on the reopening a case following a confession.
    - Sheftel referring to tav/149: "Now the prosecution contends that Streibel signed this document at some stage, but before the 17th of July 1942."

    T09849 - Sheftel: "Now Okzow, as far as we know, is not a death camp. In fact, it is an agricultural estate.
    - Shaked: "I'd just like to add some information, it was an agricultural estate where there were forced laborers, Jewish forced laborers. Just a small but important detail."
    - [W.Z. VERY INTERESTING! Where did Shaked get this information? Why wasn't it presented in court?]

    T009850 - Pollzien: "..., if the service pass was signed on the 22nd of September or earlier and that's the day where the posting to Okzow is carried out, then there is no doubt, whatsoever, that this could not be considered to be a confession to a criminal act and I could not imagine what would here constitute a criminal act."

    T009851 - Sheftel: "We know that when Streibel signed a statement of attestation in which he denied any possibility that he signed such a card, this was back in 1983 and we know that Streibel was born in 1903."

    T009853 - Shaked declines to cross-examine Pollzien.
    - "Your honors, we've understood the legal approach according to which Streibel was acquitted in Germany. We have no questions for the witness."
    - It is about 10:00 am and Sheftel expected cross-examination to last till 12:00 noon. Sheftel does not have another witness ready, but could have had one if he had been warned earlier.
    - Levin refers to Sheftel having a "rabbit up his sleeve" with this surprise witness.

    [W.Z. Summary: The testimony of Pollzien did enhance the credibility of Streibel's testimony that he had never seen a document similar to the Trawniki ID card (and also that he had never seen or heard of John Demjanjuk). Unfortunately, Levin disallowed any testimony on the Frank Walus case. Shaked did volunteer the information that Okzow was an agricultural estate which utilized Jewish forced laborers.]

    T009855 - **** END of Pollzien testimony at end of Vol. 17 ****

    Willem Wagenaar; T009856 - 10443; 1987/11/16 - 19; Vols. 16, 17
    [1987/11/16, Mon.; T009856, Vol. 16; Wagenaar]
    [Top] [1987/11/16] [1987/11/17] [1987/11/18] [1987/11/19] [Bottom]

    T009856 - Dr. Willem Albert Wagenaar, psychologist
    - Shaked immediately objects to testimony from an experimental psychologist, his intention to discuss the Walus case, and his intention to outline proper identification procedures.

    T009857f - Shaked makes a large number of references indicating the undesirability of psychologists testifying (influence the jury, take over function of the judges, etc.)

    T009863 - From p. 77, Backheart: "I am convinced that the average lay jurors on the basis of their own life experience and common sense can make an informed evaluation of eye-witness testimony without the assistance of a psychologist, particularly when the jurors are aided by professional argument and skilfull cross-examination."
    - [Both Shaked and the judges are determined to prevent Wagenaar from questioning the credibility of the eye-witness testimony.]

    T009869f - Shaked brings up the Frank Walus case.
    - "Personally, ..., on the basis of the experience we have already had in the present case and I read the decisions in the Walus case, I would be itching to reopen the Walus case."
    - "There were 12 eye-witnesses, in part from Israel and part from elsewhere, who identified Walus as the person who had perpetrated the atrocities of which he stood charged ... he was denaturalized."
    - [W.Z. During a retrial, in front of a new judge, Walus was exonerated after irrefutable proof was presented as to his innocence.]

    T009871 - Shaked: "Let us take the identification parades, as they call them, of Walus. The procedure is similar to what was done here. The style is similar to what was performed here. The photographs ... are of the same type."
    - [W.Z. That is exactly the point! They were invalid in the Walus case and (hindsight has confirmed) that they were obviously invalid in the Demjanjuk case.]

    T009874 - Shaked: "But it is inconceivable to have the whole of the Walus case brought and introduced into this court and serve as a sort of peg on which to hang a comparison."

    T009876 - Shaked: "But the practical aspect of this opinion [of Wagenaar] is an analysis of the identification parades and the line-ups and in the cases of Walus and Fedorenko as well, serve as further example of how one can go wrong in identification parade."

    T009877 - Fedorenko admitted that he was in Treblinka. The argument was as to what he had done there.

    T009883f - Shaked had not informed Sheftel that he would be objecting to Wagenaar's testimony, so Sheftel is not prepared to counter the objection.
    - "And there was a definite agreement whereby if the prosecution intends to object to anything that the defense brings up, there would be an advance notice. We did not receive advance notice, so we did not prepare any counter-argumentation."
    - Levin finally gives Sheftel a half hour break to prepare.

    T009886f - As it was carried out, Sheftel claims the "lineup is not in fact a test of memory but a manipulation of memory."
    - Sheftel repeats the summary of the Walus case. He displays a just-received copy of a letter from Alan Ryan to the U.S. court saying that they will apologize and pay compensation to Walus.

    T009896 - Sheftel refers to the work of Elizabeth Loftus (who is present in the hall) and cites several modern cases where the courts supported the use of the testimony of psychologists.

    T009900 - Levin wants a citation where the psychologist referred to specifics and not just generalities.

    T009901 - Sheftel counters that Patricia Smith referred specifically to the picture of the accused and the defense wants to make a specific reference to a photo-spread which identified the accused.

    T009916 - Finally, after 60 pages, Levin rules that they will hear Wagenaar's general testimony and then decide on-the-fly when it comes to specific testimony.

    T009917f - Wagenaar was born June 30, 1941, in Utrecht, Netherlands; is Professor of Experimental Psychology at the University of Leiden; Fulbright Scholarship to U.S. in 1973/74; lists a whole series of positions and memberships; testified in about 40 trials, half of which were related to gambling problems and the other half to memory problems.

    T009926f - Wagenaar gives two examples of gambling cases and two of memory cases.
    - Did the witness recognize a person because he was the kidnapper or because he had previously seen a picture of the person?

    T009943 - 87 scientific publications; about 50 lectures.
    T009945 - Wagenaar: "... in some research utilizing juries and judges, it has been found that juries and judges tend to rely more on eye-witness testimony when it is presented with great confidence."

    T009948 - Nun/97 = curriculum vitae of Willem Wagenaar.
    T009949 - Wagenaar studied the statements of Radiwker, Kolar and Demjanjuk (1979, 1980, 1881, 1984, 1986 and 1987); and 8 out-of-court statements from 1976, 1978 re Fedorenko trial.

    T009951 - On Sunday, Nov. 15, 1987, Wagenaar viewed tav/57, 25, 26 presumably pictures shown to Shlomo Helman. [Who is dead.]

    T009953 - Wagenaar: "I have looked at out-of-court statements and in-court testimony of twelve witnesses in the Frank Walus trial and I have looked at the photo spread that was presented to these witnesses."

    T009961f - Wagenaar was struck that not all survivors were able to identify "Ivan". (e.g. Shlomo Helman, Goldfarb, Turovsky, Chaim Steier)

    T009970 - Wagenaar: "The test should be so difficult that people with relevant memory pass the test, people without such a memory fail the test."

    T009973 - Wagenaar: "Yes, I fairly explicitly excluded from my testimony the question whether the memory of the witnesses that have appeared here in court is reliable or not."
    - "The only thing I can comment on is the question whether their memories have been critically tested."

    T009974 - Nun/98 = article by Robert Buchaut of two people convicted for crimes of third person.
    T009977 - Wagenaar: "First, you ask the witnesses a verbal description of how they remember the face ... Then you compose an identity parade of faces that all meet this one description."

    T009977f - Two forms of bias response:
    - (1) 50% of people will always point to someone in the line-up, even when the target isn't present. This may happen when:
    (a) witnesses attach a great importance to punishment of the perpetrators,
    (b) they believe that the perpetrator is in the line-up,
    (c) they view a mug file where everyone is a suspect (from police records),
    (d) they strongly believe that their memory would not fail them,
    (e) they believe that someone else had identified the suspect.

    T009985 -
    - (2) Specific bias when a line-up or photo spread is not fair.
    - "the fairness of a line-up can be tested by presenting the same pictures to people who have not been witnesses at all."
    This may happen when:
    (a) there is in the photo spread or line-up only one picture that fits the general description of the perpetrator,
    (b) one picture is markedly different from the others - size, color, etc.,
    (c) the number of pictures of innocent people are small (minimum should be 7),
    (d) the viewer has a strong belief in a "stereotypical face of a criminal",
    (e) the interrogator makes conscious or unconscious suggestions,
    (f) a question makes specific reference to one of the pictures,
    (g) the witness was earlier exposed to an identity parade containing the same suspect.

    T009999 - Wagenaar: "I exclude explicitly any testimony on the reliability of the testimonies of the survivors who have given testimony in this court."
    - "No, I do not exclude testimony about the statements made by the accused."

    T010003f - Long discourse on episodic memory.
    - "people find it very difficult ... to distinguish between those elements they really remembered, and those elements they reconstructed on the basis of logical inference."

    T010008f - Discourse on autobiographical memory.
    - "crucial events in someone's life are remembered wrongly."

    T010010 - **** END Wagenaar testimony on 1987/11/16 and in Vol. 16 ****

    Willem Wagenaar; T010011 - 10159; 1987/11/17; Vol. 17
    [1987/11/17, Tue.; T010011, Vol. 17; Wagenaar]
    [Top] [1987/11/16] [1987/11/17] [1987/11/18] [1987/11/19] [Bottom]

    T010011 - Wagenaar gives example of autobiographical memory.
    - John Dean, Pres. Nixon's aide in the Watergate affair.
    - Although the events recalled may be reasonably accurate, the date could be wrong.
    - The opposite, recalling events at a particular date, is even more difficult.

    T010013f - Sheftel leads Wagenaar into the specific identification procedures, and although Shaked objects, judges allow him to continue.

    T010022 - Wagenaar: "Quite a few of the witnesses made a statement" that they would never forget Ivan's face, which indicates that they likely had lowered their criterion.

    T010023 - Example of 5th point of positive response bias:
    - "... one witness gave name and addresses of other witnesses to be contacted -- which means that at least they knew each other."
    - Levin cuts off further discussion on this point.

    T010027f - Sheftel presents Wagenaar with an enlargement of page 3, Tav/53 [tav/57?] for comment.
    - After they saw the pictures the witnesses gave a description of Ivan as having a "round face, short neck, starting to get bald." Only picture 16, of tav/57 fits this description.

    T010029 - Nun/99 = 8 photographs (of which #6 is 1951 Demjanjuk photo) prepared by Wagenaar illustrating an experiment he carried out in the Netherlands.
    - Big hassle when Sheftel tries to question Wagenaar about his experiment.

    T010048f - Levin finally allows Sheftel to question Wagenaar about the methodology but not the results of the experiment.

    T010049 - Wagenaar: "In this case, tav/57 was presented to 25 different people. And nun/99 was presented to 25 different people. The question put to these people was: We are looking for a person fitting this description -- who do you think it is?"
    - [The subject is left hanging since Shaked continues to object.]

    T010058f - Wagenaar points out that on page 3, tav/57, photos 16 and 17 (Demjanjuk and Fedorenko) are clearer and larger.

    T010067f - Sheftel tries to introduce the experiment of American psychologist Douglas Detterman.
    - Shaked: "Detterman tried to introduce a certain similar experiment with these photographs in the United States." ... "he was not allowed to testify in court ... in 1981"

    T010070f - Wagenaar expounds on 5th point.
    - interrogator may influence the witness.
    - should take detailed minutes of questions and answers, video or audio tapes, etc.
    - should have a third person [defense attorney] present.

    T010078f - Wagenaar testifies about tav/26 - which includes Trawniki ID photo
    - only one has blondish hair and short haircut
    - only 2 are looking directly at camera.

    T010080f - p.3 of tav/25 is 5 photographs shown to Shlomo Helman, who presumably knew Ivan from July 22, 1942 to August 2, 1943, but could not identify him.
    Wagenaar points out that because Fedorenko was known and a name of another was clearly written, there were only 3 photos in the spread.
    - Sheftel: "Shlomo Helman went on to say that Ivan of Treblinka had died on the second of August, 1943, and in fact described how that had happened."

    T010085f - Sheftel asks Wagenaar to comment on Demjanjuk's testimony.
    - Wagenaar notes 2 failures which drew his attention -- the name of the Chelm camp and failure to remember digging peat.

    T010087 - Wagenaar points out that Chelm was the name of a nearby town, the camp "was known as Stalag 370 or something", one doesn't know how many camps were in the vicinity of Chelm, and by what designation these camps were called.
    - It is not clear that Demjanjuk would have even known the correct designation of the camp.

    T010089f - Sheftel presents completely new evidence which Demjanjuk had forgotten about. This is a photograph of Demjanjuk wearing an IRO police uniform which presumably dates to 1946 in Landshut
    - Shaked: "photograph of the accused in uniform ... 1946 ... wearing police uniform ... Police IRO ... on the sleeve of the uniform."
    - Levin says that Demjanjuk will have to testify if the photograph is submitted.
    - Sheftel asks Wagenaar about similarity of Demjanjuk forgetting this episode as compared to the digging peat episode.

    - [W.Z. Later, on Dec. 29, 1987, T011571, Mr. Demjanjuk testifies that the IRO photo dates from 1951 at the Felderfink camp. On T011626, Shaked indicates that the IRO documents were signed on Dec. 312, 1946, and IRO personnel entered the DP camps in July 1947.
    - This appears to be a major error on the part of Yoram Sheftel.]

    T010094f - Nun/100 = 1946 photograph of Demjanjuk bearing the IRO police badge.
    - Wagenaar states that one often needs a retrieval cue to recall an episode.
    - "This is a clear demonstration, to me that it is possible that even an episode of six months or longer" may be forgotten.
    - "free recall is much more difficult than the recognition."

    T010098 - Sheftel withdraws the Detterman case after making the point that Battisti ruled against Detterman even before the 1981 Demjanjuk denaturalization trial, and that by 1983 such testimony would have been accepted.

    T010099f - Discussion as whether to submit material from the Walus case.
    - left in abeyance

    T010105 - Wagenaar is allowed to present the results of his Netherlands experiment:
    - with page 3, tav/57, all 25 subjects chose photo #16 (1951 Demjanjuk photo)

    T010107 - Nun/101 = results of tests for nun/99 experiment.
    - where #6 is 1951 Demjanjuk photo
    - 4 separate groups of 25 were asked different questions.
    - "many of the first choices went to the person who is fifth in the row; it is 60% for the Russian face, 80% for round face, balding, short neck, 76% for war criminal, 20% for most guilty looking person.

    T010109 - Nun/102 = average rank order for nun/99 experiment.
    - Although first choice was # 5, the second choice was often #6.
    - "So the second choice is quite often the face of the defendant [#6]."
    - In p.3, tav/57 all 100% pointed to Demjanjuk photo, whereas in nun/99 only 8% pointed to Demjanjuk.

    T010111 - Wagenaar: "The only thing I can say that for the purpose of scientific research these tests [identity parades] would not be considered to constitute valid tests of memory."

    T010113 - With respect to Demjanjuk forgetting the name Chelm or digging peat there, Wagenaar states: "... there is no scientific basis to interpret these errors as signs of deliberate lying."

    T010115f - Shaked cross-examination of Wagenaar.
    - Shaked questions Wagenaar about his own recall experiment of trying to remember events over several years.
    - Shaked refers to work of Shepard and Ellis.

    T010131 - Tav/267 = article by Ellis, Practical Aspects of Face Memory in book Eye-Witness Testimony

    T010138 - MISSING
    T010139f - very long quotations from scientific literature and discussions thereon.
    T010156 - Shaked postulates that all the cues the 5 eye-witnesses got from the prosecution made them recall events more correctly and recall the face of Ivan.
    - Wagenaar responds that it helped them to "correct the face" [to match that of Mr. Demjanjuk].

    T010158 - Wagenaar: "... recalling material that's in memory is much more difficult than recognizing material that's in memory."

    Willem Wagenaar; T010160 - 10296; 1987/11/18; Vol. 17
    [1987/11/18, Wed.; T010160, Vol. 17; Wagenaar]
    [Top] [1987/11/16] [1987/11/17] [1987/11/18] [1987/11/19] [Bottom]

    T010160f - Shaked discusses autobiographical memory and refers to self-experiment of Wagenaar in recalling events.

    T010167 - Wagenaar says that all the events he recorded were indeed stored in his memory, but the cues he recorded to help him to recall these events were not as powerful as he had hoped.

    T010169f - Discussion of psychologist Marygold Linten's self-experiment for remembering dates.
    T010180f - Sheftel objects to Shaked asking Wagenaar what he recalls about reading about the Demjanjuk testimony, but Levin overrules the objection.
    - incredible amount of argumentation as to what Demjanjuk does remember and what he should remember.

    T010209 - Wagenaar argues with Shaked: "... my thesis is not concerned with the forgetting of the hard labor [at Chelm], but with the forgetting to mention the hard labor, these are two different things."

    T010215f - Shaked plays games by claiming that somewhere (not in this courtroom), Wagenaar stated that Demjanjuk's English-language vocabulary was 500 words.
    - Wagenaar states that form reading transcripts from U.S. he got the impression that Demjanjuk was questioned in English, although he is not fluent in English.

    T010218 - Shaked: "... in all of the proceedings in the United States except for one, the accused did have interpretation into his mother tongue."
    - [W.Z. Note that Shaked does not say Ukrainian, and he does not say which proceedings he is referring to.]
    - Sheftel objects angrily: "... it is inconceivable, this is not at all true ..."

    T010220f - Shaked reads from transcripts, p.5, tav/190 [first testimony of 1978], where Demjanjuk doesn't understand "jurisdiction".

    T010221 - Wagenaar: "... there is no one single well formed English sentence which came out of the mouth of the defendant. That I must say, gives me the strong impression that the defendant doesn't know English very well."

    T010223f - Shaked starts reading Demjanjuk quotes;
    - Wagenaar protests that his "testimony is not at all related to this question";
    - Levin patronizes him: "... to find a solution in order to extricate you from this distress";
    - and Wagenaar shuts them both up by throwing the following in their faces: - "Now I feel placed on the seat of the court, when it is left to me now to decide from these texts whether the defendant has a command of the English language or not, I feel very uncomfortable with this task, because it is my feeling that it is your task not mine. And I really would mind very much to invade the territory of the courts."
    - [W.Z. Of course, at the beginning of his testimony, Wagenaar had been warned about just that!]

    T010228f - Shaked returns to the Chelm issue.
    T010231 - Exchange about possibility that Demjanjuk learned the name Chelm much later:
    - Shaked: "We have no means of finding it out, do we?"
    - Wagenaar: "I would say then you have a problem."
    - Shaked - "I suggest that you too, Dr. Wagenaar have a problem."

    T010237f - Shaked discusses nun/100 = 1946 photo of Demjanjuk in IRO uniform in Landshut, Germany.
    - Sheftel showed the photo to Wagenaar in September 1987 in the Netherlands.
    - worked as IRO policeman from 6 to 12 months, but had not mentioned it before at any hearing.

    T010240f - Shaked surprises everyone by having Wagenaar listen to an audio recording of an interview he gave at the Leiden University cafeteria to a newspaper, Head Parole, in October 1987.
    - [W.Z. How did the Israeli prosecution get this audio tape? The defense must insist that a complete chain of custody of the tape be provided. I am amazed that Wagenaar would speak about the issue publicly.]

    T010243 - MISSING
    T010243 - Shaked quoting from tape: "about the picture, there is and it hasn't come up yet, there is or has been found a photograph of him in an American uniform, what do we discover, we discover that 6 months during the period after the war he forgot entirely, he was serving as a driver for the Americans, there is a very nice photograph of this, it was only recently found by the family and on it about it he says 'Yes, damn, it is true, I forgot entirely I was there, I did that too.' He had no reason to keep quiet about it, what is wrong with that , after all it is after the war, right after the war, in occupied Germany, and this was a whole period that he entirely forgot."

    - Shaked points out that Wagenaar said "driver" and concludes Sheftel told him that.
    - Wagenaar says that Sheftel told him "internal order service" and he mistakenly said "driver".

    T010249 - Wagenaar: "Yes, of course, preceding to the visit of Mr. Sheftel, I read many, many thousands of pages of transcripts already."
    - "Yes, the purpose of Mr. Sheftel's visit to my place, was to discuss the summary of my testimony in this court ..."
    - [W.Z. I suggest that another purpose of Yoram Sheftel's trip to the Netherlands was to deposit into his Dutch bank account his fees paid by Nishnic in cash.]

    T010252 - MISSING
    T010254f - Shaked refers to an article "Meta Analysis" by Shapiro and Penrod, which is a "review of over 200 publications in the area of eyewitness identification".
    - Sickle Detection Theory
    - very long discussion of experiment and reality.

    T010273 - Tav/268 = article "My Memory", by Willem Wagenaar
    T010284 - MISSING
    T010286 - Shaked accuses Wagenaar of giving interviews in the Netherlands before testifying.
    Wagenaar: "... I think it is fair to say I was rather vehemently attacked for being ... willing to serve as a witness in this case, in order to explain to the Dutch people why I felt it would be fit to serve as a witness in this case."

    T010290f - Shaked accuses Wagenaar of siding with the Demjanjuk story in his interviews, whereas Wagenaar insists that he has no preferences and is only trying to present both sides of the story.

    T010292 - Shaked quotes from Wagenaar's audio tape interview concerning Sobibor on his immigration form: "this is the sort of same selection as on the ramp in Treblinka. You here; you there. But those who went East -- that was their end. And they knew it. ..."

    T010296 - Levin orders that Shaked get transcripts of the audiotape for everybody for the next day and submit the tape as evidence

    Willem Wagenaar; T010297 - 10443; 1987/11/19; Vol. 17
    [1987/11/19, Thu.; T010297, Vol. 17; Wagenaar]
    [Top] [1987/11/16] [1987/11/17] [1987/11/18] [1987/11/19] [Bottom]

    T010297 - Shaked refers to controversy whether psychologists should be allowed to testify in court and especially the views of Ellis.
    - Wagenaar obviously is pro-psychologist.

    T010302 - Wagenaar: "I have never proposed that eye witnesses be screened in psychological tests. I've only proposed that eye witness identification methods should be screened ..."

    T010304 - Shaked keeps trying to make Wagenaar say that experimental psychological results cannot be applied to real life situations, and Wagenaar keeps insisting that they can.

    T010305f - Sheftel finally [and stupidly] objects sarcastically. "I mean the Robertson days are gone." "So the music is changed and altered ..."
    - Levin reams out Sheftel and gives Shaked the "full backing of the court" in attacking Wagenaar.
    - Shaked fails miserably, when Wagenaar states: "in the area of experimental psychology there are ... ever-increasing tendencies to apply knowledge to real-life problems."

    T010308f - Shaked tries to submit Patchella's article in book "Law and Human Behaviour", Sheftel objects, Levin upholds the objection but allows Shaked to question Wagenaar about it even though Wagenaar has only skimmed it and not read it thoroughly.

    T010314f - Shaked interrupts Wagenaar in the middle of his explanation and asks another question; Wagenaar protests; Levin chides Wagenaar for being annoyed; Shaked tries to submit the article again; Levin refuses but questions Wagenaar himself with veiled threats and innuendoes; more discussion and finally Levin tells Shaked to move on.

    T010329f - Shaked refers to the "polemics" between McCloskey and Egis [Egeth] and Loftus "concerning the place of the expert witness of experimental psychology in the courts".
    - Shaked presents an article of McCloskey and Egeth and Wagenaar interprets it negatively, questioning whether they had placed the "discussion in the correct context".
    - Shaked interrupts Wagenaar's discourse and Levin chides Shaked that it is for the court and not Shaked to intervene.

    T010342 - Tav/269 = May 1983 article by McCloskey re identification by eye witnesses.
    T010343 - Shaked refers to a study by Yule and Katchol of Canada, which Wagenaar has not read. Shaked says that this proves that Wagenaar is not an expert.

    T010354 - Wagenaar: "... I'm utterly confused by the fact that I am now asked to defend completely different principles in completely different cases which I have not even proposed myself."

    T010355 - Journal of Applied Psychology (1986), "A case study of eye witness memory in a crime."
    - which Wagenaar has not read.

    - Levin upholds Sheftel's objection to Shaked asking Wagenaar to quote the 12 studies ...

    T010360f - Shaked quotes from p.73 of Devlin Commission Report (1976).
    - Wagenaar responds that Devlin outlines "how to conduct identity parades which are almost identical with the problems with the way I have sketched them."

    T010378 - Re eye witness memory, Wagenaar: "... whether visual information might lose detail during a large number of years, that's the question."

    T010380 - Tav/270 = Barack study, "Fifty years of memory for names and faces - A cross-sectional approach."

    T010387 - Shaked: "... 90% of the faces shown to the subjects were identified by the subjects.
    T010396f - In a Dutch newspaper, Free Netherlands, is published a letter by Elizabeth Loftus
    - "I read your article about Demjanjuk dated September 5th 1987."
    - "Mr. Sheftel will be presenting in court Mrs. Loftus. He will be putting her on the stand and she will be saying that people do not remember 40 years later."

    T010418 - Wagenaar: "... then there is in general an upper limit of accuracy in a later identification test, which is around say about 80% correct, for one single eye witness."

    T010420f - Sheftel re-direct of Wagenaar.
    T010420f - Sheftel returns to the use of the word Chelm versus Stalag. (Presumably Krakowsky referred to Stalag 379.) Demjanjuk doesn't remember the name of his commander or number of his division in Crimea.
    - Wagenaar says that there is no evidence that either name was used at that POW camp. He re-iterates that it is not clear that Demjanjuk knew these details in the first place.

    T010433 - Levin: There were "two situations in which the photographs were shown, first the photograph from 1951, and then a photograph from 1942."
    - [W.Z. That is exactly the point. The Jewish public was first conditioned with the 1951 photograph so as to more easily "recognize" the 1942 photograph. The 1951 photograph should never have been shown.]

    T010439 - Tal asks about specific bias and positive response bias in photo identification.
    T010442 - Levin rules that Shaked need not submit the audio cassette and transcripts of Wagenaar's interview at the Leiden University cafeteria.
    - [W.Z. And, of course, it is never revealed how the prosecution got it.]

    [W.Z. Summary: All the participants -- the judges, the prosecution, the defense and Willem Wagenaar -- were very careful not to cast doubt on the general testimony of the five Jewish Nazi collaborators who testified against Mr. Demjanjuk. They were very careful to limit themselves to the identification procedures only -- with Wagenaar supporting the defense position that these procedures were inadequate and biased and the prosecution defending them. Wagenaar easily won this battle.

    However, both the prosecution and judges kept insisting that the testimony of an experimental psychologist could not be accepted in an Israeli court. They had to preserve the facade that the Demjanjuk trial was legitimate, since they had every intention of hanging him no matter what evidence was presented.

    Twenty-twenty hindsight clearly indicates that the five eye witnesses erred not only about the identification of Mr. Demjanjuk, but virtually all their testimony about Treblinka.

    Shortly after the end of the Demjanjuk trial, Wagenaar published his book titled "Identifying Ivan: A Case Study in Legal Psychology", which goes into far more detail concerning the inadequate identification procedures. My CRITIQUE of this book is archived at this web site as DEMANUK.017.]

    T010443 - **** END of Wagenaar testimony on 1987/11/19 in Vol. 17 ****

    [Top] [Next]