Session 054-03, Eichmann Adolf

Q. What did you notice about him that led you to draw these

Presiding Judge: He has already described his appearance.

State Attorney Bach: Tell us simply everything that you

Witness Gordon: When he went inside, he was dressed
meticulously. When he came out, his shirt was hanging out,
and his clothing was disarranged. I would say that he was
tired – he was breathing deeply. That’s it.

Q. Those stains that you saw – how big were they?

A. I don’t remember.

Q. Approximately?

A. I can’t remember that.

Q. On what side of the shirt did you see these stains, on
the front portion or on the rear?

A. On the front, at any rate.

Q. After he went out, in what direction did he go?

A. He went the same way as he had come.

Q. Did you also see Slawik?

A. Yes. I saw Slawik afterwards.

Q. Please continue with your account.

A. A few minutes after Eichmann came out and left the place,
Slawik came out. I saw that he was looking for his driver.

Q. For Teitel?

A. Yes. And he also shouted for him. Later on I saw Teitel
appear, but I did not notice from what direction. They went
into the shed and they dragged the boy’s body outside. I saw
how they were holding him by the legs and dragging him. The
boy was lifeless.

Q. Did you see any signs of life in the boy?

A. No.

Q. Perhaps you would describe what you saw on the boy?

A. It was no longer a human form. I could see his eyes, the
face was swollen, it was completely covered with blood. It
is difficult for me to describe it exactly. He was torn,
rent apart; they dragged him away and put him down in front
of the back entrance. After that the driver went away, and
brought back a kind of car-boat – the kind used by the
German army.

Presiding Judge: An amphibious car?

Witness Gordon: Yes, it was a car that was equipped for
riding both on water and on land.

State Attorney Bach: Was this a car that belonged to

Witness Gordon: I assume so.

Q. It was at his disposal?

A. Yes. It was a car which we saw every day. Apart from
that, there was also a black private car in front of the

Q. You saw this car every day at this villa?

A. I can’t say exactly – but I think so.

Q. What happened then?

A. After the car arrived I saw how the body of this boy was
placed in the back seat. As it looked to us, it appeared
that they placed the body under the back seat. Then the
chauffeur drove off and returned about half an hour later
and ordered us to carry on working. He came up to us – we
were then in a larger group, working together. I don’t
remember what we were actually doing at the time, but he
came up to us and spoke to us, expressly in Hungarian. He
was a Swabian who knew Hungarian.

Presiding Judge: From Transylvania?

Witness Gordon: No. The Swabians lived in an area near the
Austrian frontier. This was a Hungarian sect, speaking

Judge Halevi: Are you speaking about Slawik?

Witness Gordon: I am speaking of Teitel. He said to us: “I
threw the carcass into the Danube. You will all suffer the
same fate as that boy.”

State Attorney Bach: This Teitel – where was he when
Eichmann and Slawik were inside the shed?

Witness Gordon: I didn’t understand the question.

Q. Where was this Teitel when Eichmann and Slawik were
inside the shed together with Salomon?

A. After they had brought the boy inside the shed, he went
away. I didn’t keep track of him – I don’t know where he
went to.

Q. Did he only come back subsequently when Slawik called

A. Yes. We were then far too shocked and did not notice
exactly what was happening.

Q. Apart from Eichmann and Slawik were there any others who
went into that shed, together with Salomon?

A. No.

Q. Did this Slawik talk to you again, afterwards, about this

A. No.

Q. But you continued working with him?

A. Yes, we continued working with him.

Q. Subsequently, did you ever see Salomon again?

A. No.

Q. Did you subsequently see your other comrades who worked
with you on that day?

A. Yes, I saw one of them, the one who worked with me,
called Bruck, in 1945, in Budapest. He survived, but later
on I met him once in the street and we spoke about this

Q. I am referring specifically to the days following this
incident. Did you continue working in the same place?

A. Yes.

Q. Did the others continue showing up at work?

A. Yes.

Q. For how long afterwards did you go on working at this

A. I can’t tell you exactly, for two other incidents also
occurred at the same building.

Q. Please tell the Court about the two later incidents which
you witnessed.

A. After one of the three incidents – I shall refer to the
other two later – after one of the incidents, we ceased
working at that building. I don’t remember after which of
the incidents it was that we finished working at that place.

Q. Which of the other two incidents?

A. Yes.

Q. You don’t remember the chronological order?

A. No, I don’t remember the chronological order.

Q. Nevertheless, please describe these two incidents.

A. One evening we were about to go home. We came to work
every day. It was almost dark.

Q. When you say “we came to work every day,” how were you
able to travel to your place of work?

A. We were provided with passes which we received from the
SD or the SS. I don’t remember. I think these passes we
received from the SD, and this pass forbade the Hungarian
authorities to touch us, to take us to other work.

Q. Please continue.

A. The person in charge of all these operations, whom I
mentioned – his name was Engineer Kolbach – came that
evening to supervise the work. Before we left the building
an SS soldier came to Engineer Kolbach and called to him to
go inside the building. He said that Eichmann was calling
him. While this was happening we saw Eichmann standing
outside, not on the balcony I mentioned earlier, but on the
side balcony. After Kolbach entered the building, Eichmann
disappeared from the balcony. We stood there for a moment,
waiting. We were not permitted, at that moment, to leave the
place. We heard how a quarrel broke out upstairs, we heard
shouts, and we heard what seemed to be slaps on the face.
After several minutes we saw that same SS soldier, who had
called Kolbach, accompanying Kolbach and putting him into a
car. To me it seemed to be the same amphibious car – and he
drove away in it. A brother-in-law of Kolbach, also an
engineer, whose name was Hegedus, was working with us. He
was very frightened, and understood immediately that they
were taking his brother-in-law, Kolbach, up to the
Schwabenberg, to the Majestic Hotel. We waited for a further
half hour and then we were allowed to go home. Hegedus came
to me, since I lived in the same quarter of Buda and could
speak German, and asked me to go up with someone to the
Schwabenberg, to the Eden Hotel, in order to speak to
Buehring. Buehring was the liaison officer between the Jews
and the Germans. He asked me to find out from Buehring what
had happened to Kolbach. When I think of it, it was somewhat
of a crazy thing to do to go there, but despite that we

Q. But you did so?

A. Yes, I did it. I knew that Buehring resided at the Eden
Hotel which was opposite the Majestic Hotel.

Presiding Judge: Did you go there alone, or with Hegedus?

Witness Gordon: No, I went there with another boy who also
lived in Buda. We went to the Eden Hotel. Between the Eden
Hotel and the Majestic Hotel there was a small bridge, and
on it stood a sentry. We went up to the sentry and asked him
to call Mr. Buehring. He had the rank, it seemed to me, of
Oberscharfuehrer – something like that – a sergeant.
Buehring came out, they called him. I told him about
Engineer Hegedus whom he knew, and he also knew Kolbach, and
we said that we thought Kolbach had been taken in error and
was now already at the Majestic Hotel. This Buehring
generally behaved towards us in a very decent and honest
manner, he never shouted, and he treated us in a humane way.
He promised to find out about this. We went home, it was
very late, and we never saw Kolbach again. I, at any rate,
never saw him again.

State Attorney Bach: Did Buehring or anyone else inform you
definitely of his fate?

Witness Gordon: No.

Q. This was the second incident you spoke about. Now tell
the Court about the third case.

A. The third incident also occurred in the course of the

A. Where did it take place?

A. I remember this incident, and I can also remember the
approximate date. I am positive that, on this occasion, the
Jews who used to come from the suburbs of Budapest were
already no longer there. By that time we were eight to ten
persons, no more.

A. Of your Jewish comrades?

A. Of the fifteen of us who were taken from the suburbs of

Q. There were then only eight or nine of them?

A. Yes.

Q. What was the reason that the others no longer came?

A. We knew that the Jews of the environs of Budapest had
been deported.

Q. That is to say, there were still eight or nine of you
working there?

A. I think it was about ten – up to ten, no more.

Q. And so?

A. That morning Slawik appeared with a Hungarian woman; he
led her by the arm. This woman was apparently the wife of
the gardener or of the man in charge of the house. We were
given an order to line up inside this toolshed. Then Slawik
began shouting at us that this Hungarian woman had a
daughter 8 or 9 years old, and that one of the Jews had
tried to rape this girl. He asked us who had done it. In the
middle of this shouting Eichmann came inside and, without
enquiring what was happening there, began slapping several
of us in the face. Amongst the others I, too, was privileged
to receive a slap from him.

Q. Did he walk from one to the other and give each one a
single slap in the face? In what way was this done?

A. I did not pay attention. I was dazed from the slap.

Q. Was it a strong, heavy slap?

A. I think it was fairly strong. After that, this woman – in
the middle of the shouting – began crying. I understood that
she was arguing that it was not true, it was a false charge.
Suddenly we were told to leave the place.

Presiding Judge: I do not understand this now. Did the
gardener’s wife begin to say that this was a false charge?

Witness Gordon: Yes.

Q. And who spread the libel – do you know that?

A. I think it was Slawik – I think it was Slawik’s doing. We
believed that we could thank this woman for the fact that we
came out of this place without harm. I think it was after
this incident that we went back to work on the Schwabenberg.

State Attorney Bach: How was Eichmann dressed during this
third incident which you have just described?

Witness Gordon: I didn’t manage to see what he was wearing
during this incident, but he generally went around in long
trousers and a shirt. I never saw him with a jacket.

Q. Did you occasionally see people who visited Eichmann in
this villa?

A. Yes. On one of the occasions a large car with a
diplomatic number – C.D. – arrived. Our engineer said that
this was the Ambassador Veesenmayer.

Q. Did you see this man on that occasion?

A. Yes. I saw him but only from the side – I didn’t see his

Q. Mr. Gordon, after that incident occurred, the one which
you previously described concerning Salomon, did you also
talk about it to other persons?

A. First of all I spoke about it to my family, after I
returned home. At the beginning I was reluctant to tell my
parents for I did not want them to be unduly worried. But I
told my brother who was also working on the Schwabenberg but
who had not come to work on Apostol Street.

Q. How long after the event did you tell your brother?

A. On the same day.

Q. Where is your brother today?

A. In Kibbutz Kfar Hahoresh.

State Attorney Bach: Thank you very much.

Dr. Servatius: I have a number of questions. Witness, you
have just said that you informed your brother immediately,
on the next day.

Witness Gordon: Yes.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/04