The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/v/van-roden.edward/1999/usenet.9912


Path: hub.org!hub.org!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!novia!sequencer.newscene.com!not-for-mail
From: jeff_brown@bigfoot.com (Jeffrey G. Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Fitzwilliam on how to obtain a confession
Date: 29 Dec 1999 14:47:20 -0600
Organization: none
Lines: 190
Message-ID: 
References: <000b8d9b.941ad206@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>
X-Newsreader: MT-NewsWatcher 2.4.4
Xref: hub.org alt.revisionism:702491

In article <000b8d9b.941ad206@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com>, Fitzwilliam
 wrote:

>Israel knows how to obtain confessions from prisoners. The war crimes
>prosecutors of Nazis also knew. Here are some examples:
>
>SS Generals Sepp Dietrich and Joachim Paiper: flogged until soaked with
>blood.
>
>Rudolf Hoess: deprived of sleep, food and water for 3 days with the
>help of a pickaxe.
>
>"Torture with burning matches driven under the prisoners' fingernails;
>knocking out of the teeth and breaking jaws; solitary confinement and
>near starvation rations ... The investigators would put a black hood
>over the accused's head and then punch him in the face with brass
>knuckles, kick him and beat him with rubber hoses ... All but two of
>the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the
>testicles beyond repair. This was the standard operating procedure with
>our American investigators." Judge Edward L van Roden.
>
>So why do Holocaust promotionists continue to rely on these unreliable
>confessions?

Mark van Alstine has dealt with this crock of shit already:

>From ...

--- begin excerpt ---

From: "Patterson, Dallas W." 
Newsgroups: soc.history.war.world-war-ii
Subject: Re: Allied hipocricy ?
Date: 22 Jul 1998 13:06:34 -0700

 

The alleged American intimidation and torture of the German SS prisoners tried
and convicted of the Malmedy-Bagnez Massacres was long ago proven to be a
poorly conceived fabrication of falsehoods and distortions for the purpose of
saving the defendents from the gallows. This is a fact that is well documented
in books and U.S. Senate committe testimonies. See: Richard Gallagher, Malmedy
Massacre, (New York: Paperback Library, 1964).

Willis Everett, senior defense counsel, obtained statements from his
defendents claiming their admisions of guilt were obtained by brutal
intimidation and torture. On the basis of these claims by the SS convicts,
Everett succeeded in having his petition for writ of habeus corpus accepted by
the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Army complied, and two civilian jurists were
appointed to perform the legal review. Justice Gordon Simpson, Texas Supreme
Court, and Judge Edward Van Roden, Orphan's Court, Delaware County,
Pennsylvania (formerly Chief of the Military Justice Division, U.S. Army,
ETO), were appointed to perform the legal review of the trials and
convictions. This review of dozens of defendents was performed in only six
weeks! Basing their decisions upon the case documents, Simpson and Van Roden
recommended the commutation of the last twelve death sentences for these
particular SS convicts. Unfortunately, their decisions were based upon the
false testimonies of the SS convicts without the benefit of impeaching
evidence from the prosecution. This uncritical acceptance of the false SS
testimony proved to embarass Simpson and Van Roden when the true facts were
subsequently revealed.

On May 4th, 1949, Van Roden was called before the Malmedy Massacre
Investigation of the U.S. Senate, where he was called upon to answer questions
about his widely published statements regarding the intimidation and torture
of the SS prisoners to obtain confessions. It immediately became apparent that
Van Roden's public statements about the alleged events were untrue. Van
Roden's own testimony in the Senate hearing disavowed his public statements.

In the first place, the widely published statements about the destruction of
the prisoners' testicles and similarly grotesque mistreatments were not
written by Van Roden at all!

The inflammatory article that appeared in the Progressive magazine and
subsequent publications were falsely written by James Finucane, Associate
Secretary, National Council for Prevention of War, an anti-war pacisfist
lobbying group in Washington, D.C. Judge Van Roden disavowed the statements
attributed to his byline by James Finucane. The claim that all but two of the
139 prisoners had their testicles destroyed by the kicks and torture of the
American captors proved to be a bizarre and entirely fraudulent claim.

U.S. Senator Hunt, a committee member, personally interviewed Jochen Peiper,
Sepp Dietrich, and the other SS convicts at Landsberg Prison on 6 September
1949 to determine the validity of their accusations of mistreatment. These
interviews and the transcripts of the interviews reveal a pattern of
falsehoods, gross distortions, and impossible fantasies. One by one, the
grossly inflated allegations were proven to be outright false or grossly
misrepresented and exagerrated. Out of the 137 men who had claimed their
"testicles were destroyed," none were destroyed.  Although Peiper claimed a
Polish Army guard damaged one of his testicles, examination proved he had a
slightly swollen testicle and likely caused his own injury to give his
fraudulent claim a vestige of credence. One convict admitted the purpose of
the allegations was to save them from the gallows and long prison terms they
had expected to escape.

So why didn't the U.S. Army do a proper job of refuting the baseless charges
of intimidation and torture? When Willis Everett, senior defense counsel,
argued for a review of his clients' convictions by the U.S. Supreme Court with
a writ of habeus corpus, the U.S. Army prosecutors were excluded from that
court's hearing and review. If the U.S. Army prosecutors had been allowed to
present their own evidence in rebuttal to the false defense allegations, the
defense would likely have lost the case in a unanimous vote of the Justices,
or the defense would never have filed the writ with the court to begin with.

The bottomline of the SS allegations is that they were a thinly disguised
fraud that succeeded in winning them an escape from their richly deserved
punishments. Thanks to the effort of their defense counsels and American
jurisprudence, they escaped capital punishment for the murders of American
was used by Senator Joseph McCarthy to launch his disreputable career.

The only hypocrisy here is the claim that Americans abused the SS murderers
and perjurers by wrongfully granting them freedom upon the basis of perjured
testimony, and after they were rightfully tried and convicted for their
heinous crimes against American POWs and Allied civilians. Using false
statements which Judge Van Roden publicly and officially denied in a Senate
hearing fifty years ago as the justification for accusing Americans of
extorting confessions with intimidation and torture is itself a hypocritical
and irresponsible action favoring the memory of the NAZI murderers at the
expense of their forgotten victims.

 

--- end excerpt ---


>From ...

--- begin excerpt ---

> "On January 23, 1949, the Sunday Pictorial published, under the headline
> 'Americans Torture Germans to Extort 'Confessions,''  What it called "An
> ugly story of barbarous tortures inflicted in the name of allied justice,"
> taken from the report of the American Judge Edward L. Van Roden, who had
> investigated allegations to this effect as a member of an official
> Commission of Enquiry. The Judge foun that German prisoners were subjected
> to various forms of maltreatments till, as the Pictorial said, "Strong men
> were reduced to broken wrecks ready to mumble any admission demanded by
> their prosecutors.""
> 
> Page 191 - Unconditional Hatred, By Captian Russell GrenFell, R.N.

According to a NYT article, dated March 2, 1949, Van Roden's criticized
solitary confinement and mock trials but didn't mention any systematic
brutality. Instead, "Judge Van Roden said his reviewing agency had found
no general conspiracy to obtain evidence improperly." A March 5 NYT
article said, in regard to one of the review board's findings, that:

  "Physical force was not systematically applied to obtain statements,
   but undoubtedly in the heat of the moment on occasions the interrogators
   did use some physical force on a recalcitrant suspect."

Moreoever, according to Bower, Van Roden's allegations "were shattered
when it was proven that his informant Friedrich Ebble, who had claimed to
have been scarred by the interrogators when they inserted burning matches
under his fingernails, had no scars whatsoever. Ebble, who had a criminal
record, was medically declared to be mentally disturbed. Van Roden
publically admitted his mistakes..." (Cf. Bower, _Blind Eye To Murder_,
pp.326-327.)

> On the same page it talks about smashing testicals, beating of hooded German
> Prisoners.
 
The Simpson Commission investigated the allegations. The investigation
included medical records and examinations by physicians. The unanimous
opinion of the Simpson Commission was that there was no evidence that the
allegations of torture (i.e. knocking out of teeth, breaking, jaws,
kicking testicles, etc.) were correct. Later, Joe McCarthy carried out a
Congressional inquiry into the allegations. McCarthy, hardly a friend of
the Army, and did his best to "prove" the allegations. He failed. The
Committee's conclusion was also that no 
torture took place. General Clay's Army investigation likewise concluded
that no 
torture took place.

See also:

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/giwer.matt/lies/lie-interrogation-methods

Hmmm. Three investigations. All three three concluded that no torture took
place.

--- end excerpt ---

So why does "Fitzwilliam" insist on repeating long-discredited claptrap?

JGB

=====================================================================
Jeffrey G. Brown                               jeff_brown@bigfoot.com
 "What's going to happen?"   "Something wonderful..."   -- '2010'


Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.