[email protected] wrote:
We must note that Blackmore claims to use pages 75, 76 and
show that he is being a distortionist again.
Let’s look into this claim by Ada that she is a doctor.
[Page 67]
“Fifth Day — Friday, 21st September”
“ADA BIMKO, sworn, examined by Col. Backhouse — I am a
Jewess from Poland and a Doctor of Medicine. On 4th August,
1943, I was sent from Sosnowitz to Auschwitz. […] When we got to
the Auschwitz Station, we left the rtrain and were lined up, men on
one side, women on the other. Women and children were loaded on
to trucks and sent away. An S.S. doctor pointed with his fingers
and said “Right” and “Left,” […] Part of these people selected
were loaded on to trucks and later I was told they were sent to
the crematorium and gassed. My father, mother, brother,
husband and small son six years of age were included in that
number.”
[So as a comment here I would ask
Blackmore/Belling/Whoever-possibly-Ehrlich
to provide the reasons for his suggested doubts about the validity
of her claim that she is a doctor.]
[Page 69]
“[…] I left Auschwitz and arrived in Belsen on 23rd November,
1944, and Kramer arrived the first days of December, 1944.”
[Page 70]
“[…] “One of the accused you recognized this morning was the man at
the far end of the front row of the dock (Francioh). What can you
tell us about that man? — He was in charge of the kitchen in the
women’s camp. Near the kitchen there was a room where potatoes
were peeled, and there a young woman internee was bending down to
take a few peelings of these potatoes which were lying about when
suddenly this man jumped out of the kitchen with a gun in his hand
and shot her twice. I was only a few yards away from the spot, and
approached the wounded woman, and very soon I had to state that
she was dead.[…]”
[All the above is prior to page 75]
Blackmore quotes — Ms. Bimko cross-examined by Captain Phillips:
This is just after and Blackmore leaves it out.
[Pages 75-76]
“Cross-examined by Captain Phillips –[…]
“You recognize this man (indicating No. 16, Karl Francioh). Do
you know what his name is? — I do not know his name, but he was
in charge of the Women’s Camp No. 1 in Belsen, where I lived
and worked .
[Since this will be a reconstruction of Blackmore’s misquotes I will
put
$ before the lines that were in Blackmore’s post.]
$Q: “You say this man jumped up out of the kitchen
$ and shot a woman. What sort of gun did he mur-
$ der the woman with?
$A: It was a revolver. He fired two shots from only a few
$ yards away.
[The above is okay. But we now know who is being spoken about.]
$Q: Was there any reason for his doing this?
$A: The only reason was because he saw the woman
$ bent down to get some potato peelings or some
$ other vegetables.
$Q: Did you examine the woman after she was wounded?
$A: Yes, I did, and I had to state the cause of death.
$Q: After the liberation you remember making statements
$ which were put down in writing. Were these statements
$ read over to you after they had been written down?
$A: Yes.
$Q: In what language were you questioned?
$A: German.
$Q: How many statements did you make in all?
$A: Three.
$Q: Do you remember now what you said then
$ concerning this incident?
$A: Yes. I said then what I say now.
******************************************************************
The actual word is regarding and not “concerning.”
Do you remember now what you said then regarding this
incident? — Yes, I said then what I say now.
*******************************************************************
$Q: I propose to read you part of the first of these
$ statements: “On the day before the British troops
$ arrived at Belsen, I saw Karl Francioh, who was a cook,
$ shoot a man internee dead for stealing vegetables.”
$Q: How did you know this man’s name?
***********************************************************************
The actual question was:
“How did you know this man’s name then?” She is talking about
the cook.
*************************************************************************
$A: I did not know the name then.
$Q: “I witnesses this shooting, and because I was a
$ doctor I immediately went to see if I could do any-
$ thing for him.”
$A: It was a woman.
$Q: “I saw he was dead, having been shot through the
$ stomach.” When you made the first statement how did
$ you know this man’s name?
$A: I never knew the name of this man. I knew that he was
$ in charge of that particular kitchen. I was shown some
$ photographs (!rb) and out of these I picked this man out.
$ Maybe those people who showed me the photographs
$ knew the name of that particular photograph and maybe
$ they put it in.
***************************************************************************
It doesn’t seem to be so odd that she would be shown pictures
to identify the cook.
**************************************************************************
$Q: You made three statements, the first dated 9th May. When
$ you made that first statement were you shown the
photographs?
$A: Later-not at that time. When I gave this declaration I never
$ mentioned the name of the man because I did not know him.
$ When I made the first declaration I did not sign on the
spot,
$ and only later on, when I had been shown the photographs,
$ did I sign, but even then I did not know personally the name
of
$ that man.
$Q: What explanation do you produce of the fact that you referred
$ to this man shooting a woman, whereas in your affadavit you
$ refer to him shooting a man?
(Perhaps the cook did a quick sex change with one of those
Jinsu knives?-rb)
$A: I have always said it was a woman; it is quite impossible
$ I should have said it was a man.
$Q: I am suggesting that this whole incident is imaginary. What
$ do you say about that?
$A: Then I would say that it is a lie, because I saw it myself.
<>
Not exactly, Mr. Blackmore.
<>
Let’s hear more right now! What you failed to include was portions
AFTER the above. You also failed to include portions before and
indications in the record as to whom they were referring. This is
a prime example of quoting out of context. So let’s continue to put
the context back in.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Page 78]
“Re-examined by Colonel Backhouse — […]
With regard to your affidavit, did you first make a statement
before
it was put in the form of an affidavit? — The first statement was
made
in the room where I live, then I was fetched and it was read over to
me; the second time I heard the same statement again in my room in
the block, and the third time I came and signed it. I made my
statement
in German.
After you had made that first statement were you shown some
photographs? — Only the third time when it concerned this man in
charge of the kitchen. It was a particular statement. I picked out
the
man in the photograph. I did not know his name at all.
Whatever his name may be or may not be, have you any doubt that
the man who you saw kill an internee is the man whom you recognize
to-day? I have no doubt whatsoever.
And however it may have been translated in your affidavit, are you
quite clear that you always said the person shot was a woman? —
I am quite clear.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We have to note that Blackmore does not make reference to the above
bit
of testimony! Try to imagine the chaos that existed in Belsen at
the time it was captured by the British. It is quite remarkable
that the testimony was as orderly as it was when the trial was heard.
As a friend points out to me:
I have not spent a bunch of time looking at the parallel testimonies
given by other witnesses nor have I looked at the cross-examination
of Francioh in any great detail. Suffice it to say that the court
acted
with remarkable justice and that out of 48 accused, the following
findings of the court were found:
[Charge 1 = committing a War Crime in Belsen; Charge 2 =
committing a War Crime in Auschwitz)
Guilty of Charge 1 and Charge 2 = Kramer, Klein, Weingartner,
Volkenrath,
Grese,
Lohbauer
Guilty of Charge 1, Not Guilty of Charge 2 = Ehlert, Zoddel
Not Guilty of Charge 1, Guilty of Charge 2 = Hoessler, Bormann,
Guilty of Charge 2, Not Guilty of Charge 1 = Schreirer
Guilty of Charge 2 = Starostka
Guilty of Charge 1 = Francioh, Kulessa, Burgraf, Egersdorf, Pichen,
Stofel,
Dorr, Ostrowski, Auerdzeig, Ilse Forster, Bothe, Walter, Haschke,
Fiest,
Sauer, Lisiewitz, Roth, Hempel, Kopper,
Not Guilty of Charge 1, Not Guilty of Charge 2 = Lothe,
Not Guilty of Charge 1 = Klippel, Schmitz, Mathes, Otto, Barsch,
Schlomoivicz, Ida Forster,
Opitz, Charlotte Klein, Hahnel, Polanski
11 were sentenced to death by hanging
1 was sentenced to life imprisonment
5 were sentenced to 15 years imprisonment
9 were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment
2 were sentenced to 5 years imprisonment
1 was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment
1 was sentenced to 1 years imprisonment.
The rest were acquitted.
I wonder if the Nazi courts were as merciful.
Blackmore takes the testimony is taken out of context. The
book is 750 pages long and covers a lot of ground. To reach a verdict
(Karl Francioh was sentenced to hang), the judges listened to the
testimonies, cross-examinations and statements as well as the
documentary evidence.
So, we have Blackmore distorting the _Anatomy_ source and now
we have a prime example of out of context reporting of the
Belsen trial. Hmmmmm.
From [email protected] Tue Oct 15 10:59:16 PDT 1996
Article: 74493 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!feed1.news.erols.com!
howland.erols.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!
uknet!psinntp!psinntp!news.intercon.com!zilker.net!usenet
From: [email protected] (Mike Curtis)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Rosa Lopez vs Ada Bimko
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 14:50:08 GMT
Organization: Zilker Internet Park, Inc.
Lines: 305
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mike.aimetering.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
