Suspected Nazi guard Demjanjuk arrives at German prison
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
British woman held for smuggling cocaine into Bali
( 2 )
-
Millions in global aid for Iraq remain unspent
( 1 )
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 6 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 10 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 7 )
-
- 秘書及び業務サポート
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥4.0M / Year
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
Order by Time Order by Popularity
37 Comments
Login to comment
0
smithinjapan
Well, if he indeed did what is being said of him, it's time to pay the piper, although quite late in life. I have no doubt that if he did what he did it's been haunting him his entire life as he saw his children grow up, felt their love, etc. Makes it all the sadder that such things, if he repents, are always done AFTER the fact.
0
Madverts
Guilty or not, what a waste of money on an old fart.
0
sabiwabi
The conviction was overturned after they identified the real "Ivan the Terrible"! What happened to all those who testified (lied!) against him the first time. Why should we expect the evidence to be any better the next time?
It is clear that they want to execute more "Nazis" to give a clear signal to others who know what really happened in the camps to remain quite.
Leave the poor guy alone!
0
Den Den
I agree with Madverts. Just Zionist propaganda. If he was in fact guilty of the horrendous atrocities, then he has had this on his conscience for a life time. Make do a days volunteer work at the nearest holocaust museum near him and let him rot in his own wicked memories.
0
kinniku
Hogwash. The conviction was overturned by an Israeli court. It seems he got a fair shake in Israel.
0
kinniku
BTW, you spelled quiet, "quite" the first time you wrote this very same post a month or two ago. Maybe you need an editor to review your repasted posts. Don't you have any new opinions to share?
0
sabiwabi
They had no choice, after they identified the real Ivan the Terrible. Until then, they were ready to hang him because they had irrefutable evidence that he was someone else. So what happened to all those who lied in court, saying that he was Ivan. Hogwash does indeed describe this whole affair.
kinniku, thank you for pointing out my spelling mistake. I'll make sure to correct it the next time I paste the comment.
0
Madverts
"It is clear that they want to execute more "Nazis" to give a clear signal to others who know what really happened in the camps to remain quite."
You're a hoot, sabi. Hisotry, facts and Reality are once again completely against you, but you keep on with the conspiracy theories.
0
kinniku
He got a fair shake. You are attempting to say otherwise and you are incorrect. When new evidence (which, as you admitted here and previously, that there was a real "Ivan the Terrible to be identified, which in turn supports the story of harsh treatment of Jewish camp inmates, which you have continously attempted to deny the existence of but now cannot any longer because you have admitted that you know there was a real Ivan the Terrible.
Now, please specifically prove that anyone 'lied' in the previous trial. Who lied? How was it proven that it was in fact a 'lie'. Lastly, do you even know what the word 'lie' means?
Of that, I have little doubt...at least the part about you pasting it again.
0
kinniku
Should have been: When new evidence (which, as you admitted here and previously, that there was a real "Ivan the Terrible to be identified, which in turn supports the story of harsh treatment of Jewish camp inmates, which you have continously attempted to deny the existence of but now cannot any longer because you have admitted that you know there was a real Ivan the Terrible) was presented.
0
sabiwabi
kinniku, are you serious? You still don't get it?
They had irrefutable evidence proving he was Ivan and they were going to hang him. But then they identified the real Ivan, which means all the witnesses who were certain that he was Ivan were full of ....
Fair shake my butt, he remained 4 years on death row. This was not an honest mistake, they were willing to execute an innocent man for a clear purpose.
0
kinniku
Yes, I am completely serious (and completely correct, too btw!). It was a trial and it went along as trials do. When new evidence was found, the conviction was overturned by an Israeli court. You know, the country you claim would never give a fair judgement. Well, they did. You were wrong.
Now, as to the witnesses. I am not commenting on whether they were right or wrong. That does not seem to be your true issue with that case. You have been constantly (and, as with other subjects, incorrectly and without any proof what-so-ever) claiming they were 'lying'. I am specifically asking you what proof you have of this (knowing full well of course that you have absolutely none).
How do you know it was not an honest mistake? What is your specific proof of 'dishonesty'?
BTW, the Israeli Supreme Court did not find him completely innocent. They found that he was not guilty of the charges for which he was brought to Israel. Prosecutors did have evidence of the crimes for which he is been brought to Germany. The Supreme Court ruled that he could not be tried for those crimes that were not mentioned in the original deportation proceedings and, as such, let him go.
If Israel wanted to execute him then at any cost, they would have found a way. They did not want to and you stand corrected again.
0
Madverts
"But then they identified the real Ivan, which means all the witnesses who were certain that he was Ivan were full of .... "
Heh...Wait, I'lm intrigued.
If this is all a Jewish/Zionist conspiracy.....how come Israeli courts looked at evidence from the then Soviet Union and aquitted him?
Kinda funny shenanigans from a country you alledge is trying to invent a holocaust.
0
Sarge
"Guilty or not, what a waste of money on an old fart"
If a member of Madvert's family had been killed, and 50 years later the murderer is finally caught and proven guilty, heck, it would just be a waste of money on an old fart - just let him go, right?
0
Sarge
Just let him go, right, Madverts? He's just an old fart, heh.
0
Madverts
"Just let him go, right, Madverts?"
The only person that has been saying and suggesting that is you. My opinion is alrady stated on the matter.
0
thundercat
kinniku, I hardly think spending 5 years of your life on death row for a crime you didn't commit as 'a fair shake' at a trail. Was he compensated for that time spent in prison under false charges? Were those who committed perjury to convict him punished in any way?
How can an 89 year old man possibly defend himself against 60 year old charges? I can barely remember what I was doing last week... let alone be able to prove what I was doing.
“It is a race against time,” Charlotte Knobloch, a Holocaust survivor, said in a statement. “For survivors of the Shoa it is intolerable to watch how a suspected Nazi war criminal, who knew no mercy for his victims, seeks sympathy and compares his deportation to torture.” After rushing to judgment like that what kind of apology would ever be adequate if he is found not guilty for a second time?
0
Den Den
If he dies in transit, will someone stand trial for manslaughter?
0
VOR
Putting him in Stadleheim prison while he awaits trial is a very interesting turn of events. Stadleheim is the same prison where some members of the White Rose--the only real NAZI resistence movement, were incarcerated, tortured and killed.
I lived down the street from it in the early 90's. It was a horrible looking place. If this guy is guilty, it is only fitting he serves out the remainder of his life in that hellhole.
0
Helter_Skelter
Call me old fashion, but it seems a little light for being involved in the murder of 29,000 Jews and others.
0
bushlover
I guess innocent until proven guilty does not apply for this man. It could have very well been a case of mistaken identity. After he gets acquitted people are still convinced of his guilt. It's amazing the 2 faces of some posters who scream justice for some but not for others.
0
kinniku
thundercat,
I never said he got a fair shake from life or fate. I merely suggested he got fair treatment from the legal system as evidenced by the fact he was aquitted with the introduction of new evidence.
I don't think so. Unless I am mistaken, he never sued for compensation, did he? Maybe he should have. Most people would.
'Perjury' specifically means purposefully and willful misrepresenting the truth or 'lying' during testimony. Do you have specific evidence of this? If so, I am sure Demjanjuk, his lawyers and his family would love to have word of it.
Well, now you are touching upon the subject of a statute of limitations. How many years do you think is fair? Personally, I would not be willing to support such limitations, especially on cases involving accusations of murder. As you know, this is an ongoing debate in Japan. I am in favor of doing away with the limitations.
Well, either it has been to long or it hasn't. One thing that I think can't be said is that he has been 'rushed to judgement'. After all, this has been going on for a long time. You seem to be suggesting that we decided whether people are guilty or innocent before we have even had the trial. Let me be tried and if he is proven not guilty, he should be freed. It is as simple as that. If he would like to sue for compensation, he should.
0
sabiwabi
If he was given a fair shake, he never would have received a death sentence in the first place.
The witnesses swore that he was Ivan. He wasn't!
When you think that all there is to back up the holocaust storyline are selected witnesses, you've got to wonder how truthful that story truly is, ne!
0
kinniku
He was aquitted upon the introduction of new evidence. If his lawyers had presented this evidence in the first place, he would not have received the death sentence. It was a fair trial based on the evidence presented. That is a fair shake.
Because it seems that that is what they believed. The fact that they were mistaken does not mean they lied. This is also a fact.
No need to think that as it is not true. There is much more and you are quite aware of this.
Nope. The two things have nothing to do with each other no matter how much you attempt to tie them together.
0
thundercat
kinniku, You obviously know a lot less about this case than you are letting on and allowing emotion to dictate judgment. There is absolutely nothing fair is losing your citizenship, being deported to a foreign country, sentenced to death and spending five years of solitary confinement on death row for a crime you didn't commit. That is the absolute opposite result we would expect from a fair and just legal system. Further, you seem to insinuate that because Demjanjuk did not sue the Israeli government over his false imprisonment he is hiding his guilt. Keep in mind this was the government that had wrongly deported him in the first place and who were actively petitioning to bring more charges that clearly lacked any concrete evidence. Aside from that, he was whisked back to the US and would have had to pay legal costs out of pocket. Do you even know if a citizen of a foreign country can sue the Israeli government? BTW, breaching an oath is also perjury. Claiming to be sure of something, under oath and then being proven wrong is also perjury. As for statute of limitations for murder... well, I mentioned nothing of the kind. Had detectives had the same technology for collecting, gathering and investigating crimes and evidence sixty years ago that they have now I would have little problem in believing it. I just don't think there is any way that he can defend himself of these charges given the amount of time that has lapsed. Your comparison with the statute limitations with Japan is laughable. 25 years vs. 60 years is a world of difference.
0
kinniku
thundercat,
As I said, I did not say Demjanjuk got a fair shake from life or fate. I don't know how I can make that any clearer. However, rules of law allow people to be deported on suspicion of crimes. It is not a requirement to have found them guilty (before a trial has even been done) to have someone deported. In addition, I have never said that it was 'fair' about losing your citizenship, being deported to a foreign country, sentenced to death and spending five years of solitary confinement on death row for a crime you didn't commit. However, you seem to be expecting judges and legal experts to be all-knowing mind readers who already know the outcome before even seeing all the evidence and going through a trial. That is the opposite of justice and it is not fair to anyone.
Yes, I suggested it as a possibility. However, I was merely responding to your question to me about whether he was compensated for his imprisonment. I know of no situation where compensation is given in such circumstances where the injuried party did not at least ask for or suggest receiving compensation.
Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, it was obviously thought that was evidence. This is true for any trial, even for trials where it turns out the person was innocent. There are actually other trials in which the accused is found innocent, you know. This is not the first time.
Yes, I do and the answer is 'yes'. People do and have sued the Israeli government. Does that automatically make Demjanjuk guilty because it is and was possible for him to sue the Israeli government and he hasn't or didn't? No, of course not. However, I assume you would be suggesting the opposite were more possible if the opposite were true. So, I am not clear on the reason for the question, nor why you didn't just look this up for yourself (speaking of not knowing the facts).
Since we are assuming (unless you have specific evidence to the contrary) the witnesses merely stated what they believed and did not willfully lie, they did not in fact breach their oath.
You are incorrect. It is the willful and purposeful telling of falsehoods that is perjury. Of this there is no debating. People who makes statements that they believe to be true but are then found to be mistaken are not charged with perjury. If they were, 1) we would have fewer witnesses willing to testify at any trial and 2) more people charged with perjury (obviously falsely so in my opinion).
Erm...yes, you did and do in this very post above...You are suggesting it is too long ago to have a trial or to gather evidence. Whether or not that is the case in this instance is beside the point. You were in fact suggesting and are suggesting that there should be some limit (you are not clear on what that limit is however).
Well, I was not comparing 25 years to 60 years specifically and I am sure you understood that. However, I ask again, what limit are you willing to have? Is it 60? I am being persistent because you keep mentioning the length of time that has passed. To me, it is the evidence and that alone, be it from 1,000 years ago or yesterday that should decide a case.
As I wrote above, the man was aquitted upon the introduction of new evidence. If his lawyers had presented this evidence in the first place, he would not have received the death sentence. It was a fair trial based on the evidence presented. Again, that does not mean life or fate was fair to him. It just means the trial process went fairly and normally.
0
thundercat
Right, so I'm to understand that being wrongly convicted is fair. A trail can never be fair if an innocent person is convicted of a crime. Whether they followed the rules during trail is besides the point.
I would also like you to point out to me exactly when I said that there should be a statute of limitations for murder. I don't want to see a guilty person walk free no matter how long ago a crime was committed. The evidence should be clear and conclusive when it is as old as the evidence is in this trail. From what has been reported it does not seem very clear.
0
kinniku
Thundercat,
No, having a trial in which both parties participate freely and can free present evidence is a fair trial. One would think this would be clear and simple. Do you have some specific problem with the way the trial proceeded? Were Demjanjuk's lawyers allowed to present evidence they chose to freely and refute evidence against their client freely? The answer seems to be yes. That is a fair trial.
No, the conviction is not fair. However the trial is fair is both sides were able to freely participate.
No, I fully disagree. If you have ever had the sad experience of witnessing what would be considered an 'unfair' trial, you would not say such a thing. The ability to freely participate and give evidence is what a fair trial is all about.
You have mentioned above a couple of times how we are talking about something that happened 60 years ago. In fact, you wrote above:
So, that seems to indicate that at one time in this discussion, you were suggesting that it is too long ago for there to be a trial about it. That suggests you are in favor of some sort of limitation.
There are many cases were circumstancial evidence is used to convict a suspect. This happens in trials that revolve around both new and old cases. If the evidence in this case is not good enough, Denjanjuk should be found innocent. However, to suggest that we decide the results of a trial before the trial based solely on what is reported in the media is, while understandable, not very legal and not very realistic. You are not completely privy to what will be used as evidence in the trial and neither am I. I believe in innocence until proven guilty. I also believe in both sides having a chance to participate in a free and open trial. That seems to be what happened in Israel and hopefully the same will happen in this upcoming trial.
0
kinniku
Let me add: There are many cases in life where everyone does their job in a trial to the best of their abilities honestly and efficiently, the suspect is convicted and it still turns out later through new evidence that the accused was in fact found to be innocent of the crime. The conviction obviously is not 'fair', however the trial that led up to it still can be. That is what I am trying to suggest.
0
thundercat
Fair by following the rules and fair as in just are two completely different things.
Sorry, you are making inferences there. I never said that there should be a statue of limitations for murder (twice now). I was referring to the fact that he was 89 years old and therefore will have trouble defending himself. Please don't put words in my mouth.
0
thundercat
Let me add: I too, hope he receives a fair trail and that those who presume his guilt (of whom there are many, it would seem) do not sway the courts decision.
0
kinniku
Thundercat,
Yes, I agree. If you would look again at all of my responses, including the one to the person who was attempting to suggest there was some Zionist Jewish conspiracy afoot, that I was referring to fair in terms of the rules being followed. In a court of law, rules of fairness are one of the most important things in terms of the all concerned getting justice. My point of view regarding this also should have been evident by my repeating over and over that I didn't neccessarily think life or fate had been fair to Denjanjuk.
I was not attempting to put words in your mouth. I just pasted what you wrote. Of course an 89 year old man is not going to remember some things well, especially some things that happened 60 years ago. Again, though, what do you suggest should be done about this? Since you are saying you are not against limitations, what are you suggesting when you write:
Again, although what you state might be true, it still doesn't change the fact that it should not matter when a suspected murder happened with regard to whether there should be a trial or not and it should not matter how old the suspect is. The evidence and a fair trial were both sides argue their evidence are what matter most.
I agree here. (It really seems we do not disagree as much as you thought when you first responded to my post! ;-) Innocence should always be presumed. In addition, my hope is that all the evidence people would like to be presented gets to be presented fairly.
0
kinniku
Should have been: The evidence and a fair trial where both sides argue their evidence are what matter most.
0
thundercat
The reason I mentioned my apprehension about 60 year old evidence is that it is a well-established fact that the Soviets were engaged in fabricating evidence to try and discredit those who did not support them. Criminal investigations from the 1940s or 50s and those conducted now are worlds apart and at this point I don't think there would be any way to separate truth from fiction.
You ask me what I suggest should be done about this? Convicting him with conclusive evidence is the only way. Of course, I have no idea what evidence will be used at trail but if he is convicted on circumstantial evidence alone I would consider it a miscarriage of justice.
0
kinniku
Thundercat,
Thank you for your response. The only thing we can do is reserve judgment on the on the judgment until there is actually a judgment and we can see what evidence was used in the trial.
Back to top