Archive/File: people/e/eichmann.adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-054-04 Last-Modified: 1999/06/04 Presiding Judge: Did you say the next day, or the same day? Witness Gordon: I think it was the same day. Q. I want to know what you said before? A. Before I said: "On the same day" but I did not attach much significance to that. I told him on the same day. Dr. Servatius: Did you say it was on the same day or the next day that you told your brother? Presiding Judge: He says that when he was questioned by Mr. Bach he said it was the same day, and now he also thinks it was the same day. Dr. Servatius: You made a statement, which I have in front of me, although I cannot see the date that is indicated here. It fits, more or less, the evidence you have given here. But they asked you questions there, and in reply to one of the questions you said: "I told my brother about this incident with Salomon a year afterwards." State Attorney Bach: Perhaps I may explain? Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, perhaps we shall first let the witness explain. Witness Gordon: I made this statement to the Police at Eilat. There was a policeman there who was very far removed from all these events, and I was obliged to explain to him, not only my evidence, but the whole background. I became tired from this, and when he read back my statement to me I apparently did not pay attention to what he had written. And later on I corrected this again, in Bureau 06. Possibly this amounted to negligence on my part for not paying attention to it. State Attorney Bach: I think perhaps there is an error here. Defence Counsel was misled through no fault of his. It is really written here "Shana" (a year) and this has been translated into "Jahr." But I believe that there is a printer's error here. I have requested that the original manuscript be brought here and I will then place it at the Court's disposal. Presiding Judge: The witness can tell us. Did you see this statement that you made at the time in Eilat? Witness Gordon: I made my statement and I saw it, but it is possible that owing to my weariness I didn't pay attention to the last sentence. Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach will submit the original statement when he will obtain it. Dr. Servatius: Witness, you said that this boy, of whom you said that he was beaten and according to your assumption he was dead, was taken to an amphibious vehicle and removed from the place. Is that correct? Witness Gordon: Yes. I said that he was taken away in an amphibious car-boat. Q. What did this amphibious vehicle look like? Was it larger than a normal car or smaller? A. I would say that it was a little longer than a modern jeep and there is a propeller on the rear end of the car. This car was painted in camouflage colours. Q. Is it easy to put a man into an amphibious car such as this one, when he is dead? A. I don't know whether or not it is easy to put a man into such a car; the fact is that they put him into it. Q. At the time of this occurrence, were other young men of the same age present? A. Yes. Q. How did all of them, together, react to this incident? A. It is difficult for me to speak in the name of others. I can only tell you of my personal feeling. And if the feeling of the others was the same as mine, well - we were all terrified, we experienced a sense of shame and helplessness. Q. Did you know of the existence of a Jewish Council in Budapest? A. Yes - this fact was known to us. Q. Did you inform them of what you had seen? A. We informed the engineer who was in charge of us - we thought that he ought to deal with this matter. Q. Was this the only experience of bloodshed which you had in Hungary, or did you witness other events of the same kind? A. No, sir, this was the first murder I had seen in my life and that is a fact which I remember so well. After that I witnessed many murders, especially in the last three months. Q. This sketch that you drew earlier - how many times had you done that previously? A. I was asked to do so once when I was being interrogated, but then I did not draw a detailed sketch; I merely indicated on what side the entrance was from the direction of the street, and on what side there was the fruit orchard...no...I also pointed out the entrance to the shed, I remember that now. Q. In this sketch you drew various pits that you dug and you said that these were intended for mortar positions. Did I understand you correctly? A. I said that at the time we dug the trenches we did not know the purpose for which we were making them; afterwards we drew our conclusions. After I had seen other trenches of this kind, I gathered that these trenches, too, were intended for mortar positions. Q. You said that Eichmann passed by and said: "Superfluous dirty people" and in this way he expressed his contempt. But how do you explain the fact that he told you to jump into the trenches when an air-raid attack was in progress? A. I don't remember the exact words by which he told us to go into the trenches. Presiding Judge: The intention was to show you that he was concerned for your safety, and that he wanted you to enter the trenches when the air attack began. Witness Gordon: When the bombing began, we apparently expressed our joy every time we saw the American and British bombers, we rejoiced because this was bringing the end of the war closer, and possibly someone even expressed this openly and in a loud voice. That was the reason - to deprive us of the joy of seeing the oil burning in Budapest. This apparently was the reason why he told us to get into the trenches, and not because he was concerned for our safety. Dr. Servatius: Would it not have been more logical or more correct, in view of Eichmann's character as you described it just now, for him to have said: "Come here, I will deal with you now, and give you special treatment for expressing your joy at the air-raid" and not for him to tell you to get into the trenches? Witness Gordon: I must point out that I have not made a psychological research into the character of Eichmann, and I do not know what is appropriate to his character and what is not appropriate; I simply indicated facts as I saw and heard them. Dr. Servatius: I do not have any more questions to the witness. State Attorney Bach: First of all I wanted to tell the Court that I have here the original statement. It looks more like "Shana" (year) than "Sha'a" (hour). Presiding Judge: Woud you please submit the statement? State Attorney Bach: I agree that the statement should be submitted to the Court - perhaps as a defence exhibit. I am also prepared to submit it on my part. Presiding Judge: First of all, Dr. Servatius, are you ready to submit this statement so that we see what is written there - "year" or "day"? Dr. Servatius: I think it is of importance. Presiding Judge: Is this statement made at the Eilat police station? State Attorney Bach: Yes, on 15 June 1960. Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit N/1. I understand this is the place: "Then, when I saw him, it seemed to me that he was 40 years of age or older than that. I was 17. I described the incident of Salomon to my brother Aaron a year after the event. Aaron is now in Kibbutz Kfar Hahoresh." State Attorney Bach: Mr. Gordon, were you living with your brother in Budapest? Witness Gordon: Yes. Q. In order to clarify the matter, perhaps try to remember and to tell the Court, once more, what really happened and when you told him. A. After I returned from work that day, I told him and I said that perhaps we should not talk about it in the presence of our parents, but ultimately we could not restrain ourselves and, notwithstanding, told our parents as well. Q. You told them, or did he? A. I told them, and he also made some remarks about it. Judge Raveh: I should like to understand something about your sketch. Perhaps you would take the sketch. There you drew two rectangles - one inside the other. Witness Gordon: Yes. Q. What does the inner rectangle show? A. The inner rectangle depicts the villa, the building. Q. The outline of the villa? A. Yes. Q. I understand. Perhaps you would write alongside it "house" or "villa" so that we may know. These were the walls of the house? A. Yes. Q. The other rectangle - what was that? A. The other rectangle is the garden surrounding the building. Q. What are these lines? A. These are fences. Q. Perhaps you would write that down. A. But, according to the actual dimensions, this area was much larger. Q. But, first of all, write down that this is the fence, so that we may know what it is. Was there a fence around it? A. Yes. Q. What kind of fence? A. I don't remember what the fence looked like. I think it was a brick wall with barbed wire on it. But I'm not certain. Q. You were standing, so you say, inside the trench? A. Yes. Q. The trench was inside the fence - between the outside fence and the building? A. That is correct. Q. And did you show in your drawing that the trench inside which you stood was opposite the back entrance? This is how I understand your sketch. Is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Please tell me whether I understand this correctly - that the shed was, in fact, part of the house? A. The entrance to the shed... Q. I am not talking about the entrance. First of all, the shed itself - was it inside the rectangle of the house? A. Yes. Q. And the entrance to the shed - on what side was it? A. The entrance was coming from this corridor on the right. Q. Inside the house? A. Inside the house. Q. That means the entrance into the shed was from a corridor which was inside the house? A. Yes - from the right-hand side. Q. And this was the only entrance to the shed? A. Yes. Q. Now I understand. Judge Halevi: Apart from your brother, did you tell anyone else about this incident? Witness Gordon: On the following day we, the boys who worked there, spoke amongst ourselves about this incident. Q. Is that all? A. Then we went to the engineer and asked whether we could be released from this work. Q. Which engineer? A. Engineer Hegedus, who was directly in charge of our work at this place. Q. Was he a Jew? A. Yes. He maintained, then, that he could not take the responsibility upon himself to release us, but in course of time he would see. Q. To release you on account of the incident? A. Yes. After I had returned to work on the Schwabenberg - this was after we had already been ordered to go to concentration points, to Jewish buildings in Budapest. I went to our family doctor and obtained a false certificate from him that I was suffering from tuberculosis. I sent the certificate to the Jewish Council, and by this means I no longer reported for work. Q. My question was: Did you tell anyone else about the case of the murder of the boy? Did you inform this engineer? A. Yes, we reported it. Q. You, and the others, informed him? A. Yes. Q. And did he react in any way? A. I don't know what he did. I didn't ask him afterwards. Q. And when you were concentrated into special buildings, the Jews in Budapest generally, did you believe that the deportation of the Jews from Budapest was drawing near? A. By that time the Jews had already been taken from the suburbs of Budapest, and we knew it was only a question of time before we, too, would be deported. Q. Did you do anything in order to prepare for this eventuality? A. I, for my part, decided, immediately after this murder, to do everything possible to flee and escape, but apart from the desire to escape we were not able to do anything. And at that time some of the members of my family were taken to labour camps - my uncle, and, later on, my brother and my father as well, and I was taken, following that, on 20 October to the sports field in Peshemkiso. Presiding Judge: Did Eichmann live alone in this whole house? Witness Gordon: I think he lived alone, except for his staff. But I am not certain, for I never went into the house through the front entrance, nor was I ever inside the house apart from the toolshed.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor