Q. Did you see anyone else, in addition to him, the
chauffeur and this Slawik?
A. I saw the gardener’s wife, who lived in one of the rooms,
I don’t know which one.
Q. And was that all?
A. On one occasion I saw a German sentry inside the
Q. How old was this boy Salomon?
A. His age was exactly the same as mine – 16 or 17.
Q. When Slawik and Eichmann entered this shed, did Slawik
have anything in his hands – some instrument?
A. I didn’t notice anything.
Q. And in Eichmann’s hands?
A. Here, too, I didn’t see anything. But there were work
tools inside the shed – pick-axes and spades.
Q. What kind of noises did you hear from there? Or, more
correctly, I would ask: Did you hear any noises apart from
the boy’s shouts?
A. I heard shouting. However I could not distinguish words.
There was confused shouting. I also heard shouts in German.
Q. Apart from that – any noises?
A. Also the voice of the boy. He cried, he pleaded. It
sounded as if they were kicking him. I heard the sound of
Q. Regarding that statement you made at Eilat, in what
language were you speaking?
A. I spoke Hebrew.
Q. And the policeman wrote it down in Hebrew?
Q. And afterwards he read out to you what he had recorded?
Q. What did you actually tell him about your conversation
with your brother?
A. I said to him that I had told him on the same day. It
simply could not have been otherwise.
Q. And he wrote down “a year later”?
Q. And he read it to you?
A. He read it to me, but I was simply tired from the
conversation and didn’t pay attention exactly to what he was
reading back to me.
Q. Were you together with your brother a year after the
A. We were together all the time.
Q. But approximately a year after the event?
A. Even after less than a year I was together with him. We
met after the War – after the liberation of Budapest – and
met for a second time in March 1945.
Q. What is your present occupation?
A. I am in charge of the watchmen’s department of the Timna
Q. You have concluded your evidence – unless Dr. Servatius
wants to ask you something in connection with the questions
put to you by the Judges.
Dr. Servatius: Witness, you said earlier that in the shed
there were work tools with which it was possible to
mishandle Salomon. But previous to that you said you heard
the lashes of a whip?
Witness Gordon: I didn’t mention lashes of a whip.
Presiding Judge: Perhaps the reference is to that statement,
when you said: “After they had entered, they closed the
door, and for half an hour I heard blows of a whip or a
Witness Gordon: I was referring to a trouser belt. I
imagined to myself, and it could only have been an
assumption on my part, that they had taken off their belts
and struck the boy.
Q. With a whip or a belt?
A. According to the sounds it could have been either a whip
or a belt.
Q. At any rate, when the two of them went inside, neither of
them was carrying a whip?
A. Certainly not a whip.
Q. As far as you were aware, was there a whip inside the
Q. Did you enter this shed from time to time?
A. We entered this shed every morning.
Dr. Servatius: It says here “…or blows with a belt.” When
one removes a belt, do not the trousers fall down, so that
it is no longer possible to do anything?
Witness Gordon: I believe it is possible to wear trousers
without a belt as well. But I don’t know exactly that it
was, in fact, a belt – I merely assumed this.
Q. I have no further questions.
Presiding Judge: Again with regard to this belt. Are you
able to say whether either of the two was wearing a belt
when they went inside?
Witness Gordon: I didn’t notice that but I supposed that
Slawik who was rather stout, also wore a belt.
Q. Did you, in this regard, notice any change in their
apparel when they came out as compared with what it was when
they went in?
Q. I mean that one of them who had a belt when entering,
came out of there without a belt or was carrying a belt in
his hand – something of that nature.
A. We were simply too terrified then to be able to notice
these small details.
Presiding Judge: Mr. Bach, as the result of these questions
do you have anything more to ask of the witness?
State Attorney Bach: No, thank you very much.
Presiding Judge: [To Witness] Thank you.
State Attorney Bach: With the Court’s permission I shall
now submit to the Court a number of documents.
The Honourable Court will recall that Mr. Freudiger
testified about a certain meeting on 20 March, in which
Krumey and Wisliceny participated on behalf of the Germans.
I wish to submit the minutes of this meeting. This is a
document bearing our No. 813. It was also handed to the
Accused and was given the number T/37(241). Authentication
of that document, together with authentication of a
substantial number of other Hungarian documents, was
received by us through the Hungarian Government. And here I
have a batch of documents which came to us bound together. I
shall afterwards submit to the Court a number of documents
from that collection. Not all of them are relevant to our
case, but the authentication is common to them. Inter alia,
amongst this batch of documents authentication as documents
which correspond to the originals which were found in
Hungary, we also have these minutes.
Presiding Judge: Which were found in Hungary?
State Attorney Bach: Which are in Hungary. We have here a
number of reports of the Hungarian gendarmerie, which I
shall also submit presently. Amongst others there are
minutes here in German. The printed copy of these minutes
was handed to the Accused and was given at the time No.
Presiding Judge: Who drew up these minutes?
State Attorney Bach: There is a signature at the end, here,
of SS Obersturmbannfuehrer and Oberregierungsrat Trenker. He
was one of the men from the Accused’s Section – we have
several items of evidence to that effect. That is the name
which appears at the end. Whether he was the man who also
wrote the minutes or to whom all kinds of applications had
to be addressed – that does not emerge clearly from the
minutes. But here it seems that these are minutes which were
sent to a number of addresses and it was drawn up on 20
March 1944. It states there who were present and what was
Presiding Judge: Do you wish to submit the entire batch?
State Attorney Bach: At least for purposes of
authentication I wanted to submit the whole batch to the
Court. After the other exhibits will have been submitted, I
can perhaps afterwards mark within the batch which exhibit
corresponds to which document.
Presiding Judge: In addition to the Hungarian authentication
is there no authentication by our Consulate?
State Attorney Bach: No, we received it in this form.
Presiding Judge: [To interpreter] Please read what is stated
here in Hungarian.
Interpreter: The reference number is 43,017. I hereby
confirm that this photocopy, consisting of 54 pages, is
identical in every respect with the original unstamped
document which has been presented to me. Given at Budapest
this 17th day of December, 1960. Dr. Paul Ronau, State
Notary. Seal: State Notary No. 5, Budapest. With the State
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1154.
Dr. Servatius: Your Honour, the Presiding Judge, may I be
permitted to point out that Obersturmbannfuehrer Trenker,
who is mentioned here, was the commanding officer of the
Security Police and the SD in Budapest, that is to say he
was not under the command of the Accused?
State Attorney Bach: That may well be…
Presiding Judge: We will not argue about the document until
we have seen it. Are you submitting it?
State Attorney Bach: Yes.
Presiding Judge: This will be marked T/1155
State Attorney Bach: Trenker’s name appears here, I believe
that he worked for part of the time with Geschke, who was
the commander of the Security Police and the SD in Hungary,
and that it was very likely that he was in charge of
Budapest. I shall check whether he was not also, for part of
the time, in the Accused’s office. At any rate, it says
here, above his name, that in the event of possible
complaints, they should be referred to SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Krumey and SS Hauptsturmfuehrer
Wisliceny. This document has already been mentioned.
Presiding Judge: How do you know that these minutes were
prepared by this Trenker? That was the question.
State Attorney Bach: I simply assumed this from the printed
copy. But I also said that I am not altogether sure that it
was written by him. His name appears at the end.
Presiding Judge: His name is mentioned. “Ueber die Pester
Israelitische Kultusgemeinde verfuegt einzig und allein der
(sic) Kommando der Sicherheitspolizei”(The Unit of the
Security Police is in sole charge of the Jewish Religious
Community of Pest).
State Attorney Bach: “IVB4” I thought that SS
Obersturmbannfuehrer Oberregierungsrat Trenker was what
appeared at the end, but it is possible that this also is
connected with the address, in other words, this is the
address to refer to. That is why I said that I was not
altogether certain that it was he who wrote the minutes.
Presiding Judge: [To interpreter] Here there is something
else in Hungarian. Please translate for it us – there is
some heading to this document, at the top, which apparently
was not translated.
Interpreter: Page 41, 20.3.1944. “List of participants which
was distributed at the gathering called by the Gestapo, with
the issue of the first orders of the Gestapo.”
Presiding Judge: At the end there are still some more words
in Hungarian on the second page.
Interpreter: “Jewish National Collection for History and
State Attorney Bach: Most of the details appearing in this
document have already been referred to by the witness
Freudiger, and I shall not repeat them. I shall only draw
attention to the opening where it is stated that all matters
affecting the Jews must be referred to the German Security
Police IVB4 only. It is announced that leaving Budapest
without permission is forbidden to all Jews. Also, changing
apartments without the consent of IVB4 is forbidden. It
contains an order calling a meeting of all the chairmen of
Jewish Institutions in general, and thereafter a number of
instructions, all of which point to the absolute control of
Section IVB4 over all affairs connected with the Jews. And
the final sentence: The Unit of the Security Police IVB4 is
in sole charge of the Jewish Community of Pest. It is
difficult to know how to link Trenker to what was said
previously, since if it was in IVB4, it was not the Security
Police and the SD, then it would mean that this is under the
control of the Experts (Referenten) on Jewish affairs. At
all events I shall look into this question of Trenker
exactly and shall inform the Court where he worked in
Budapest at the various stages of that period.
Presiding Judge: There is a mistake here in the German text.
It gives the impression that the document was not drawn up
State Attorney Bach: Possibly this was some kind of reprint
which was distributed to a number of persons who
participated, to a number of addresses.
Presiding Judge: This will be exhibit T/1155.
State Attorney Bach: On 31 March 1944 a meeting took place
at which the Accused presided. He summoned the entire
Judenrat to the Schwabenberg.
Presiding Judge: Is that also stated here?
State Attorney Bach: No, Your Honour. This does not appear
in this collection. Minutes of this were drawn up by Dr.
Boda, who has already been mentioned here, and who was one
of the members of the Jewish Council. He is now living in
Budapest, and is 80 years old. He sent us a sworn affidavit
in which he confirms the authenticity of the minutes of that
meeting which were drawn up by him. These minutes were
printed in a certain book in the Hungarian language. This
document bears our No. 785. A translation of those minutes
into the German language was handed to the Accused and was
given the number T/37(242). I would ask the Court to admit
Dr. Boda’s affidavit together with the document constituting
the minutes of the meeting.
Presiding Judge: Dr. Servatius, do you have any comment to
Dr. Servatius: No, I have no formal objections.
Presiding Judge: The name is Dr. Ernoe Boda.
Decision No. 55
We allow the submission of the affidavit of Dr. Boda,
together with the minutes which he attests, by virtue of our
authority under Section 15 of the Nazi and Collaborators
(Punishment) Law, 5710-1950.
This will be exhibit T/1156.
State Attorney Bach: There are several rather important
points in the minutes.
Presiding Judge: Where is the original affidavit? We only
have a copy of it. Why?