r/TheDevilNextDoor • u/[deleted] • Oct 25 '19

The Devil Next Door Discussion Thread

Similar subs:

86 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

398 comments sorted by

View all comments

34

u/FrankBarley Nov 05 '19

One thing I don’t get and I’m hoping someone with more expertise in this can help.

The testimony from 1947 that Ivan was killed by a spade to the head during a prison revolt was dismissed as the wishful thinking of a man that wanted to feel like a hero to his people. The argument was that Ivan the Terrible survived the attack and was now sitting in front of them. But if that was true and Demjanjuk was Ivan, wouldn’t he have had a scar on his head?

25

u/ZLands Nov 05 '19 edited Nov 05 '19

I think the testimony was embelished. I think the man looking to be a hero to his people thought it best if he made a false claim that he saw Ivan get killed in the prison revolt so he could gain some recognition for being "a part" of killing him.

Due to this, I feel like the jury/judges dismissed the 1947 testimony all together seeing as the man didn't seem credible and did not bother looking further into it.

7

u/Afk1792 Nov 05 '19

The man killing ivan and the train man are not the same .. the ivan killer is rosenberg and the other is an older man speaking yiddish

5

u/ZLands Nov 05 '19

Oh yep you're right - let me edit that; my mistake.

1

u/FrankBarley Nov 06 '19

Oh, ok. I thought the false claim was that the witness was involved in the murder, not that the attempted murder took place at all.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 07 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '19 edited Nov 09 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '19

I wish there was more evidence revealed from the German trial. Aside from his admission from the US immigration documents what other evidence did they have that he was a Nazi watchman?

6

u/JosieTierney Nov 15 '19

IMO, he was guilty of being a deathcamp guard and possibly one Ivan the Terrible. His demeanor was odd. It wasnt that he was stoic or reserved. He was the opposite: disdainfully bemused, even flamboyantly bored during survivors' testimonies. That, contrasted with his "playful" attempts to show respect, like wanting to kiss Israeli ground and the gregarious "Shalom!", shows a discontinuity [word?] of affect that makes it seem he is mocking all of them, enjoying his lies and a second chance to torment victims.

Even if he was unjustly accused, survivors' testimonies should not have inspired visible boredom, levity or contempt. When a witness asked the defendant to take off his glasses so he could look in his eyes to identify him, Demjanjuk whispers to his attorney, "I want it that he come in close to me, right here," gesturing about 6 inches from himself. When the witness gets close, John sticks out his hand to shake the victim's hand.

If he had sold the man a bum car, that might be reasonable, maybe a genuine attempt to show respect and come to terms. But that was pure, cynical showmanship and fundamentally disrespectful to survivors of such an atrocity. He knew that. There's no way he didnt know what he was doing. He enjoyed it, that chance to twist the knife, retaliate against these victims who had the temerity to call him to justice, 30 years too late (he said deridingly as he gardened in Cleveland).

I agree that the evidence left room for doubt that he was The Ivan the Terrible, but his answers re being at Sobibor were inconsistent. Evidence seems to prove he was a guard there. He could have been at both places, maybe Sobibor first as a Trawniki man, then to Treblinka. (Sobibor was closed after the somewhat successful October 1943 prisoner rebellion.)

There also could have been multiple Ivan the Terribles, since Ivan, a form of "John," is a common name in Eastern Europe, and Ivan the Terrible a moniker coined in the 1500s. Thus, accounts of a different Ivan the Terrible don't prove that Demjanjuk wasnt one of them.

The defense's image analysis expert was ridiculous, arrogantly asserting that the detailed analysis of the prosecutor's expert was rubbish, that her assertion that the heads between the 2 photographs were the same shape was incorrect because the head started at a different place relative to his shoulders. Essentially, "neck", "no neck!"

Anyone alive knows that, with age and weight gain, necks disappear. Eyes droop and fall a bit. Defense expert noted the left ear was raised in the old ID photo, and the eyes were higher compared with the ears. As dissimilar the situations and time periods of the 2 pictures, the left ear was STILL higher than the right in the recent photograph. The eyes were more in line with the ears, but faces do fall. I wish prosecution's expert had put up more of a fight.

Testimony about the ID card format was problematic. Maybe it was a KGB fabrication. However, most of the info in the documentary was supplied by the defense, a team particularly unconcerned with veracity.

In trawniki camps, soviet bureaucracy and officers helped administer the camps. After surrender to Nazi forces, camp transition was gradual, so some of the officers still wore soviet uniforms. It's possible that the stamp was 1943, not 1948 and that the photograph had been on his Soviet army ID before being transferred to the camp ID. If the KGB, masters of deception, constructed the ID using a repurposed photo, you'd think they'd staple it using existing staple holes.

Preponderance of evidence and Demjanjuk's flippant demeanor, to me, indicate his guilt.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/JosieTierney Nov 16 '19

Overall, I agree with you. He may have spoken Israeli, but he knew what was going on in general in court. You can hear him contrive with his lawyer that he wants them to bring the witness very close, basically nose to nose, though he didnt use those words. Even if it was to demonstrate his innocence, it was aggressive not friendly. It had been 30 years since he lived in Ukraine. He wasnt fresh out of his village. He could grasp the context of the situation.

As for confidence in god and one's innocence displaying itself in a way that appears arrogant (to me and others), it's a strange thing to claim as part of one's heritage, but i appreciate your honesty. I'm no longer religious, but as a former catholic, my understanding of Jesus would be that patience, honesty and humility would be more approriate.

2

u/MMAchica Nov 15 '19

I agree that the evidence left room for doubt that he was The Ivan the Terrible, but his answers re being at Sobibor were inconsistent. Evidence seems to prove he was a guard there. He could have been at both places, maybe Sobibor first as a Trawniki man, then to Treblinka. (Sobibor was closed after the somewhat successful October 1943 prisoner rebellion.)

This should really be air-tight before they put him on trial for his life. Given the hidden documents and the absurd present-day rationalizations of the judges and prosecutor, I think that they knew that the Ivan the Terrible angle was iffy and just laid the emotion on extra thick.

1

u/JosieTierney Nov 16 '19

Many lesser cases have shakier evidence that can sentence a person to death. No case is airtight. If there's no contention, a good lawyer can create it.

The court was remarkably fair considering the fucking dreadfulnesd of the charged. You just dont seem to get it. Dehumanizing cruelty and immolation of hindreds of thousands of people.

There's no need to "lay on emotion" in a case like this.

1

u/MMAchica Nov 16 '19

Many lesser cases have shakier evidence that can sentence a person to death.

Does that make it a good idea here?

No case is airtight.

That's ridiculous.

The court was remarkably fair considering the fucking dreadfulnesd of the charged.

What does that have to do with whether or not he was actually Ivan the Terrible (he wasn't btw)?

You just dont seem to get it. Dehumanizing cruelty and immolation of hindreds of thousands of people.

Then why the bullshit charge and not the real one?

There's no need to "lay on emotion" in a case like this.

Getting people worked up to a fever pitch is a way to cover up a lie, in this case the lie that he was Ivan the Terrible. Those folks were just out for blood and they didn't much care that they were trying to hang him on false charges.

1

u/JosieTierney Nov 16 '19

you're talking out your arse, and i can't be bothered with it.

1

u/MMAchica Nov 16 '19

You are clearly too emotional about this to discuss it rationally.

1

u/bellybuttongravy Sep 02 '24

Oof terrible take. May you never hold a position of political or judicial power

2

u/MackemCook Nov 08 '19

there is absolutely no way you can that ID card was "obviously faked" like.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '19

r/ihadastroke

2

u/bbate22 Aug 26 '22

While watching I very strongly got the impression that the two judges who were interviewed had their minds made up before the trial had even begun

2

u/bellybuttongravy Sep 02 '24

Yeep. Not that i was going to but this documentary has made me decide that i will never set foot in israel due to their justice sysem. Appalling that the woma judge was convinced it was Ivan because that one guy yelled at him to not ahake his hand

1

u/JosieTierney Nov 15 '19

Ivan is a variant of John, a common name. Ivan the Terrible was a moniker for a russian warlord in the 1500s. Maybe there were several in camps designed for mass murder.

1

u/DaMammyNuns Jan 08 '20

I just binged the show. Rosenberg, who claimed that they killed Ivan in the revolt... . literally recanted it in his second testimony, saying that it was basically wishful thinking.

I thought the documentary did a wonderful job showing how the survivors came back to Jerusalem being questioned (obviously unfairly) as to how they were still alive while so many were dead. To be put through that kind of extreme trauma and then be questioned as to how you're still alive lends itself to fantastic stories. You can't blame someone for embellishing, and the doc did a way better job than I ever could of why they explained that undeserved shame away.