Useful Enemies

Demjanjuk’s, as his supporters alleged? Again, if a substitution were made, the seal and/or the official German stamp on the photo would have been disturbed.

“This was studied microscopically,” Epstein said, “and it was determined to be one and the same seal…. My conclusion, after completing the tests on this document, was there are no alterations, substitutions, or inter- lineations.”

Horrigan knew that the defense would try to debunk Epstein’s conclusion because the document examiner had looked at two photos of the card rather than the original card.

“The fact that the government’s Exhibits 5 and 6 were photographs, did that hamper your investigation in any way?” Horrigan asked.

“It would have been preferable to have the original documents,” Epstein said. “As far as the examination was concerned, I felt that I was not restricted by the use of photographs.”

“It affected your opinion in no way?”

“It did not.”

• • •

John Martin was ready for Epstein. His job was to cast serious doubt about the validity of Epstein’s conclusions. He began by alleging bias.

“What is your religion?”

“I am Jewish,” Epstein said.

Martin made his point and moved on.

“Mr. Epstein, the tests or the conclusions that you reached here are not conclusive, are they?”

“They are as conclusive as I can render them,” Epstein said.

“Experts do differ in their conclusions,” Martin said. “Do you agree with that?”

“Yes, I would agree to that.”

“Often time [sic] conclusiveness to one expert might not be conclusiveness to another expert. Would you agree to that?”

“I am assuming,” Epstein clarified, “that you are talking about two people who are completely qualified and who have both received the same material to examine. In a case such as this, they should both reach the same conclusion.”

Martin changed his tack. “The conclusions… are not on an equal par with fingerprints, are they?” he asked.

“That is incorrect, sir,” Epstein said. “Handwriting identification is a positive identification, and it is considered along the same line as voice prints [and] fingerprints.”

“Are you testifying here that your tests….and conclusions are on an equal footing… with a fingerprint conclusion?”

“Yes.”

“Mr. Epstein, certainly the expert… say you, for example… is not infallible?”

“I know of nothing that is really in that category other than mathematics,” Epstein said. “I think we are all fallible.”

Next, Martin challenged Epstein by pointing out differences in strokes, spacing, loops, and letters on the blowup photo signatures Epstein showed the court. Epstein explained how each variation was consistent with his findings.

“If a person had your background and knowledge and was attempting… to fabricate or forge a signature,” Martin asked, “would he not be aware of the spacing habits and all these things you told us about?”

“The person may be aware of something but unable to duplicate it,” Epstein said. “I have tried many times… and found that I am a total failure at it.”

“But do you not deny that one trained in fabricating documents would have a greater success than you?”

“Yes.”

Martin had found one major weakness in Epstein’s analysis of the Trawniki card and he waited until the end of his cross-examination to exploit it. The flaw: There were critical standard tests that Epstein did not do.

“You have not performed any tests that would reflect or indicate to you when these signatures were written, have you?” Martin asked.

“This has to be done only from the originals.”

“So that it is fair for us to assume then that we have no idea when… that signature was written?”

“Not from my examinations, no.”

“Then you cannot say whether or not… it is a genuine document that was prepared in 1950, 1960, or 1970, can you?”

“No.”

“Is it possible to ascertain the source of the printed material?”

“If you had the original document.”

“Is it possible to ascertain…the model of the typewriter used to produce the specimen?”

“Again having the ability to examine the original document.”

“Are there any techniques that exist to determine the kind of ink that is used on the document?”

“Yes, there are several,” Epstein said. “But again you would need the original document.”

“Mr. Epstein, there are persons who, if trained properly, could forge documents such as these. Is that right?”

“I can only say that I have never seen any.”

• • •

Next, the government called Heinrich Schaefer and Otto Horn to the stand by way of videotaped testimonies taken in Frankfurt and Berlin, Germany, a year earlier.

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE From the Horse’s Mouth

As a Volksdeutsche who had worked in the Trawniki office with Ernst Teufel, Heinrich Schaefer was a valuable witness. Unlike Ziemke, Schefler, and Gideon Epstein, Schaefer was actually at Trawniki. As an eyewitness, he had three jobs to accomplish for the prosecution: Establish a date when the Trawniki school opened, confirm Schefler’s academic description of the school, and reinforce Epstein’s conclusion that Streibel’s and Teufel’s signatures were authentic.

Like Demjanjuk, Schaefer was a former Red Army soldier, captured by the Germans, and sent to a POW camp in western Ukraine. At the end of August 1941, German police arrived at the camp with several empty transport trucks. At the time, Iwan Demjanjuk was recovering from shrapnel injuries in a Soviet hospital. The police selected Schaefer and fifty or sixty other Volksdeutsche and ordered them into the trucks. Then they drove the POWs for about five hours to Trawniki.

On the videotape, Horrigan began his examination of Schaefer by establishing a timeline for Demjanjuk’s transfer to Trawniki, a point the government would return to time and again.

“Were there any other Soviet army prisoners of war… there when you first arrived?” Horrigan asked.

“We were the first.”

“What, if anything, did you do there?”

“For the first two weeks, nothing at all,” Schaefer said. “Then we were divided into military… groups. And then we received light training.”

“How long were you so trained?”

“Until the middle of December.”