HOMEDISINFORMATIONDEMJANJUKPEOPLECRIMES
Neal Sher
Letter to John Broadley
17-Jan-1989
OSI has no report on Glazar
Neal Sher's letter, then, is condescending, supercilious, dismissive, and unresponsive. He appears to view the OSI as his own private fiefdom within which he is not obligated to follow due process, and ensconced within which he cannot be held accountable to outsiders.
Neal Sher's letter below is a reply to the letter of Demjanjuk defense attorney John Broadley to US Attorney General Richard Thornburgh protesting the suppression of exculpatory evidence by the OSI.
The Neal Sher letter below constitutes Exhibit I in Edward W. Nishnic's 2 Feb 1989 letter to all members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, which provides an excellent overview of the chief reasons for believing that the US Office of Special Investigations (OSI), under the direction of Neal Sher, suppressed or destroyed evidence that was exculpatory of John Demjanjuk, accused of being Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka.
At least the following four things are noteworthy about Neal Sher's reply, and perhaps indicative of his competence and his integrity:
(1) Whereas John Broadley repeatedly requests production of interview reports for three witnesses � Richard Glazar, Kurt Franz, and Franz Suchomel � Sher replies only concerning Glazar, ignoring the requests concerning Franz and Suchomel. A competent reply from a man of integrity would have dealt with all three of the witnesses named.
(2) Concerning Glazar, Sher affirms merely that Glazar interview reports could not be found in the Demjanjuk file. Sher avoids stating that Glazar had never been interviewed, and he avoids stating that Glazar interview reports never existed. Sher's reply, then, is compatible with Glazar having been interviewed, with interview reports having been prepared, and with these interview reports having been removed from the Demjanjuk file. A competent reply by a man of integrity would have specified either that Glazar had never been interviewed, or that he had been interviewed and here were his interview reports.
(3) The Broadley letter details and documents reasons for believing that the three witnesses in question � particularly Richard Glazar � had been interviewed by the OSI. If Neal Sher had wished to demonstrate competence and integrity, he would have either explained to Broadley why these details and documents were misleading, or he would have admitted that one or more of the witnesses had been interviewed, and would have produced the interview reports.
(4) Neal Sher offers no justification for concealing the identities of witnesses, as for example the identity of the Bern, Switzerland witness. Surely any such witness must fall into one of two categories � either his testimony will tend to be inculpatory or exculpatory, and so his identity either must or ought to be divulged to the defense. An OSI reply demonstrating competence and integrity would address this issue � would either announce some third category into which a witness could fall which necessitated concealing that witness's identity, or would disclose the identities of all witnesses.
Neal Sher's letter, then, is condescending, supercilious, dismissive, and unresponsive. He appears to view the OSI as his own private fiefdom within which he is not obligated to follow due process, and ensconced within which he cannot be held accountable to outsiders. He shows no commitment to the
essence of Western justice, which is submission to due process no matter what the outcome, and whenever the outcome proves undesirable, to modify that due process through legislation. Neal Sher's commitment, rather, appears to be to a given outcome no matter how much of a violation of due process this may require. Neal Sher is a lawyer without respect for the law. He is a prosecutor who knows only how to persecute.
The "Vaugh Index" referred to by Neal Sher below should correctly have been written the "Vaughn Index." As the underlined text in the letter below is not in color, it does not constitute clickable links, but rather simply text that was underlined in the original letter. A Lubomyr Prytulak letter to Neal Sher asking questions about the Neal Sher letter below can be found on the Ukrainian Archive.
[seal]
U.S. Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
JAN 17 1989
John Broadley, Esquire
Jenner and Block
21 Dupont Circle, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Re: Nishnic v. Department of Justice
(D. D.C. Civil Action No. 86-2802)
Dear Mr. Broadley:
This is in response to your October 25, 1988 letter to the Attorney General in the above-referenced matter. In that letter you alleged that there is a "serious question" whether the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) failed to disclose certain documents in the Vaugh Index prepared in the Nishnic FOIA case. In essence, you have suggested that OSI failed to identify its Report of Investigation and memoranda memorializing its interviews with Mr. Richard Glazar.
The OSI Demjanjuk file has once again been reviewed. OSI has no reports of investigation or any other record of interviews of Mr. Glazar conducted by Justice Department officials.
Sincerely,
[signature]
Neal M. Sher, Director
Office of Special Investigations
Criminal Division
11th Floor, Bond Building
1400 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530