Session 072-07, Eichmann Adolf

Presiding Judge: It says here “Bands”.

Attorney General: That is what the tape is called in the
transcript itself – tape 1, tape 2, and he followed the
pattern of the transcript. As I have said, Inspector Hagag
found that all the printed material was typed on these
typewriters. The greater part is typed on two machines, and
only one page on the third. Hence, we can, from a practical
point of view, ignore the third machine, at least for the
time being.

His conclusion is that all the handwritten material,
comprising eighty-three pages, is identical with the
Accused’s handwriting, in accordance with the opinion which
is already in the Court file, or, more accurately, there are
two opinions – one of 10 April 1961 and the other of 17 June
1961. He compared the handwriting which I gave him from the
transcripts, those eighty-three pages, and found that it was
the Accused’s handwriting, basing himself on the handwriting
he had received from Bureau 06 – that is document T/36.
T/36 is the affidavit of Inspector Hagag, in which he
identified the Accused’s handwriting; Inspector Hagag finds
that all the material written in handwriting in File 17 – as
we shall call it, for the sake of convenience – consisting
of eighty-three pages, was written by the Accused.

Inspector Hagag finds further, on the strength of the
indications that he mentions in his opinion, that the
various alterations which appear in the transcript, both
those parts that were typed on the one machine and those
typed on the second machine – and there are eighty-six of
these, which he can identify with confidence – were made in
the handwriting of the Accused. There is a further
substantial number of alterations, on which Inspector Hagag
will testify, that provide him with data for identification,
but he cannot be certain in determining the identity of the
handwriting. In these, there are no counterindications
concerning the Accused’s handwriting.

In order to complete the picture, I would say that in a
number of places some other handwriting appears – in a few
places only – not in order to change the text, but, as is
evident, in order to supplement what was said, either
because the words were not properly recorded or because the
typeprint was not good enough; this is not an alteration,
but supplementary, and in a few places only.

In order to convince the Court also by other means that this
document, indeed, came from the Accused’s hand…

Presiding Judge: Is this a typed document with handwritten

Attorney General: With handwritten alterations and, in part,
on eighty-six pages, written fully by hand.

Judge Halevi: Does all this appear in the photographs?

Attorney General: All this is in the photographs; we do not
have the originals – only photostats.

The name of the Accused appears very frequently in the
course of the conversation which develops between the
speaker and himself. The speaker is mentioned three times;
once in what we read on tape No. 12 on page 2, as “Kamerad
S.,” in tape No. 27 on page 5, as “Kamerad Sassen,” and in
tape No. 28 on page 3 again as “Kamerad Sassen.”

Judge Halevi: How is the Accused refrred to?

Attorney General: “Eichmann”.

Judge Halevi: In second person, or in what way?

Attorney General: In the course of the conversation, he
turns to him: “Eichmann, what do you say about that?” and
similar words, several times. The single page printed on
another typewriter, the third, the sole verification for
which I ask you to accept as well, since it is in the
context and connection with the words contained in the whole

Judge Halevi: Is that amongst various pages, or is it at
the end of something?

Attorney General: No, it is at the end of the tape. But it
is the continuation of what precedes, and the Court will
note, if it cares to peruse the material before taking a
decision, that everything revolves all the time around the
same subject. The Court will recall that the Accused, in
his interrogation in Bureau 06, acknowledges that he had, in
fact, conducted this conversation, part of which was
published in Life, but – so he maintained then – the
extracts in Life were taken from various sources, and,
hence, the context of what was said does not represent his
correct version.

Presiding Judge: On what page does it appear?

Attorney General: The Court will find it in the evidence of
Inspector Less and the Accused’s reactions to the article in
Life. We shall presently identify it. I think that on
three occasions, he gave Inspector Less his response to the
article in Life.

Presiding Judge: The magazine is marked T/47, the Accused’s
remarks T/48, and the supplementary replies T/49, T/50 and

Attorney General: We did not content ourselves with a formal
examination and endeavoured to make an internal comparative
analysis. We have a comparison of a substantial number of

Presiding Judge: According to the contents?

Attorney General: According to the contents of the items
which appear in this document, which we shall call, for the
sake of convenience, the “Sassen Document” – as compared
with the comments that were made in the interrogation in
Bureau 06. This is, after all, circumstantial evidence, and
the Court will find that in a large number of places, the
Accused repeats in Bureau 06 the statements appearing in the
transcript. I would not say that he always repeats himself
– there are deviations, there are many deviations. But
there are characteristic expressions in reply to certain
matters, which are identical in his statement at Bureau 06
to what we found in the material. A comparison of these
statements, the one against the other, as carried out by us,
constitutes in our opinion, most important corroborative
proof that what we have before us – also from the point of
view of content – is to be identified as a document of the

The material as a whole, all that we have here, concerns the
activity of the Accused during the period of his tenure of
office in the Third Reich. It includes various
autobiographical elements.

Judge Raveh: Do the written pages correspond in some way
to the printed ones?

Attorney General: Yes, it is the same subject, Your Honour.
The subject is Eichmann’s work.

Judge Raveh: But, in a more formal manner, is there any

Attorney General: No, I don’t think so.

Judge Raveh: Apparently there are some tapes missing

Attorney General: Five tapes.

Judge Raveh: It is quite obvious that there is an interval
in the tapes.

Attorney General: Each tape contains exchanges on the same
subject. Sometimes the words are repeated again, and even
for a third time. There is no method running through from
the beginning to the end; I could not discover any system in
these conversations which, as was said there, was to have
served as material on which Sassen and Eichmann were to
publish together a book on his activity in the Third Reich,
although there are several details where Eichmann says:
“This you may publish after my death, not in my lifetime.”

Judge Raveh: Is it clear when it was compiled?

Attorney General: Certainly; it is possible to establish the
date precisely. It was written in 1956-1957, since it talks
of twelve or thirteen years after the end of the War. They
express themselves on a Congress of Jewish Studies in
Jerusalem, and Eichmann states his opinion about the
proceedings of the congress. We know when that took place.
The conversations were held according to what appears in the
transcripts themselves over a number of months – four
months, it says here. This was not one continuous
conversation, but there were various conversations. There
are also comments by Eichmann in writing – what he calls
“Bemerkungen am Rande” (marginal notes). Occasionally,
there are also times when the participants leave a
particular topic for further elucidation, and that is
specified in writing. In the tapes of Bureau 06…

Presiding Judge: When the word written here is “Band” at
the top of each page, does that mean the number of the tape?

Attorney General: Yes, the number of the tape is recorded,
apart from the two first pages. I think that they are
marked “AA”.

Now, if I may be permitted to remind the Court, in
Eichmann’s statement this matter is mentioned twice. On
page 3191 – there are two places, we shall quote them
presently – where in his statement to us, Eichmann says that
he had already spoken on that subject in Buenos Aires. This
is actually here, on page 3191: “Da will es mir scheinen,
dass ich dem Betreffenden mit dem ich diese Sache auch
abgesprochen hatte, in Buenos Aires ueber diesen Fall
gesprochen habe” (It seems to me that I have spoken about
this case to the person concerned, the person with whom I
also discussed this matter in Buenos Aires). He remembers
that he discussed this matter in Buenos Aires.

On page 397 – I would be grateful to the Court if it would
check the accuracy of the quotation: “Und ich sprach auch
jetzt erst wieder mit Mildner, vor ungefaehr drei Jahren,
mag’s her sein, und habe diese Sache zerpfluckt in
Anwesenheit von einem gewissen Herrn Sassen, der
akkreditierter, wie sagt man hier, `Journalist’ in der
Regierung drueben war” (I have now spoken once again with
Mildner. This could have been three years ago. I explored
this matter in all its details in the presence of a certain
Mr. Sassen, who was an accredited – how do you call it –
journalist in the government over there). Is that the page?

Presiding Judge: Yes, 397.

Attorney General: On the basis of these data, which I am
ready to prove: (a) the identification of the handwriting
and of the alterations; (b) the identification of the
general content of the subject matter with which the
transcript deals; (c) the identification of several details
which in his interrogation in Bureau 06 he repeats in the
same style, sometimes using identical expressions, with that
which appears in the transcript; the Accused’s reply to the
article which was published in Life, where he did not deny
that it had actually represented part of the discussions he
had held, although he does not describe these conversations
accurately; the fact that all the transcripts describe the
Accused’s activities, as has already been established in
this trial, and as he himself has admitted – that his
Section IVB4 is mentioned dozens of times as “my Section” –
I ask the Court, after all this will have been proved, to
admit the transcript as evidence, to allow the material in
our possession to be accepted as a statement by the Accused,
which is admissible in evidence, since it was not given to a
person in authority, as a statement made out of Court, in
respect of which I do not have to prove that it was given
voluntarily or not induced by threats.

Judge Raveh: That means you are not relying on Section 15
of the Nazis and Nazi Collaborators (Punishment) Law?

Attorney General: I think I do not have to, I do not need
it, having regard to the comparative material in my
possession, I think I do not need Section 15. I think that
the material is admissible as evidence, authenticated in
this way, in any criminal trial.

Judge Raveh: Do you maintain that Section 37(2) of the
Trial Upon Information Ordinance applies here?

Attorney General: Certainly.

Judge Raveh: But the requirements of this section…

Attorney General: Have been complied with. That is to say,
it originates with the Accused.

Judge Raveh: Have you compared the wording of this

Attorney General: I remember it.

Judge Raveh: It contains something very restrictive
concerning the manner of proving a statement by an accused

Attorney General: Yes, certainly. It states there that if
we wish to prove an accused person’s statement before a
“person in authority”…

Presiding Judge: No – perhaps we should read the section.

Judge Raveh: Perhaps it would be worthwhile to compare the

Attorney General: It is the Evidence Ordinance and the Trial
Upon Information Ordinance.

Judge Raveh: It is the Trial Upon Information Ordinance” –
I think it is Section 37(2).

Attorney General: Yes.

[Quotes Section 37(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Trial Upon
Information) Ordinance.]* {*”A statement made by an accused
person otherwise than during the preliminary enquiry may be
proved by the evidence of a person who heard the statement
made: If the statement has been reduced to writing and
signed or otherwise attested by the accused, it shall be
proved by the evidence of the person who was present at the
time and heard the statement made and saw the accused sign
or otherwise attest the statement”} That is to say, whoever
heard or saw him signing, and so on. I have never thought
that this section is the only one to validate a written
statement by the Accused. I believe that if I were to find
in the home of an accused person – let us take an example
far removed from our present case – if I were to find a
sketch made in his handwriting, and if I can prove that this
is his handwriting, a sketch of a place where a crime has
been committed, or of a place where a robbery was committed
the next day, of which the accused person is suspected, and
in a search of his home this sketch is found – this sketch
is admissible evidence. I am able to show the circumstances
in which it was discovered and which point to the fact that
the sketch, indeed, originates with the accused person.

Judge Raveh: That means that this is not the only means of
proof – is that what you maintain?

Attorney General: This is what I am arguing. It is not

Presiding Judge: Has anyone checked whether any judgment
exists relating to this section – some authority for what
you have just stated?

Judge Raveh: Perhaps it is worthwhile to go into that
question some time.

Attorney General: I think there is.

Presiding Judge: I do not remember that. This is one of the
neglected sections, one of those which are most important,
but which are generally overlooked.

Attorney General: I think there is [an authority on the
question]; perhaps we could hear whether Defence Counsel has
anything to say on the subject of submitting the document.
Perhaps we could save ourselves some time.

Judge Raveh: Perhaps you will show the section also to Dr.

Attorney General: Certainly.

Judge Halevi: I, for my part, am not certain that this
section applies to the statement of a person made before he
is charged. It may be that this section applies only to
accused persons making statements, for example, to the
police. It says specifically “not made before an examining
magistrate,” how to prove other statements of an accused
person, but only after he has the status of an accused

Attorney General: Is this what Your Honour is referring to?
Or to the way conversations of a prisoner in prison are
proved, after he is in prison and one of the prisoners
reports on what he has heard him saying.

Presiding Judge: Then Section 37 will apply.

Attorney General: I ask: Is Your Honour, Judge Halevi,
referring to such cases?

Judge Halevi: I am referring, first of all, to the
recording of an accused person’s statement to the police.
This can in general be divided into two parts – orally and
in writing. But it means all kinds of oral and written
statements of a person who has the status of an accused, and
not of a person who is accused today, but whose statement,
at the time he made it, was made after the offence
attributed to him had been committed, but before he was
charged at all. That is to say, the document being
considered here was drawn up in the interim period, during
the years that lapsed between the commission of the offences
attributed to him and his becoming an accused. I do not
know whether Section 37(2) applies at all to statements made
in this interim period. In other words, if we regard this
section as an exhaustive and restrictive one, I would have
to consider whether this restriction applies to an interim
period such as this.

Attorney General: If Your Honour would allow me, with great
respect, to give an example for strengthening this view: A
letter of an accused person to his accomplice in crime would
certainly be proper evidence, even if no one saw him writing
this letter. It would, nevertheless, be possible to make
this letter evidence, if, in fact, the offence was committed
in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy which such a letter
created. I believe that there has never been any doubt on
this point.

Judge Halevi: A letter to his accomplice in crime after the
crime was committed?

Attorney General: No – before the crime was committed.

Last-Modified: 1999/06/08