Authenticity of evidence at Nuremberg?

[rschwartz33]

Deniers typically dismiss particularly implicating evidence presented at Nuremberg, particularly German war documents, as illegitimate third hand translations or outright fabrications.

They post this Article as proof that the evidence presented by the prosecution could not be contested in any way, even if the defendant knew for a fact it was false.

The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof. It shall also take judicial notice of official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations.

Is this really true - the meaning of judicial notice? Are there any examples of the defense successfully contesting evidence or at least calling it into question?

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi rachwartz,

It would appear that "Judicial Notice" was not introduced specifically for the Nuremburg trials. Wiki defines it as:

"Judicial notice is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known, or so authoritatively attested, that it cannot reasonably be doubted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to rely on the fact at issue. Facts and materials admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and they are even admitted if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary.

Judicial notice is frequently used for the simplest, most obvious common sense facts."

It seems to be designed to prevent a filibustering defence intent on clogging up proceedings with quibbles over otherwise agreed facts or secondary details. If there were no challenges to it at Nuremburg, that might be why.

Cheers,

Sid.

[steve248]

Did they really find evidence that was false and didn't say so?
Researchers mostly only see the mimeographed typed up copies of Nuremberg documents. These were typically used at the trials to avoid handling just the one copy of an original. But the originals were available if requested.
At the Einsatzgruppen Trial (Nuremberg, Case 9) the defendants were all faced with the very situation reports that they had sent to Berlin (Ereignismeldungen UdSSR) which mention executions carried out by Kommandos under their command. Some complained the figures of execution victims were wrong and exaggerated by Berlin, not that they had carried out the executions.

[Loog]

There are a few examples from the trial where evidence is contested by the defense.

HERR BOHM: Mr. President, the point is that since the two-
witnesses who would have been competent in this matter could not
be brought here, the matter must be clarified in such a way that
there is no doubt about this forgery. For if this report of action,
taken were true and correct, the SA would be tremendously in-
criminated by it.

https://archive.org/stream/TheNurnbergT ... I_djvu.txt

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: I am not forgetting your first
words in evidence that you said that you could give an account of
the SA from 1933 onwards dealing with all relevant parts — how-
ever, if that is your answer I will leave it. I will now take up
another of your suggestions. Look at Document Number 1721-PS.

My Lord, that is the document that is in the original document
book, dealing with the events of November 1938. Your Lordship will
remember that the witness suggested yesterday that the document
was not authentic.

[Turning to the witness.] Now, Witness, I am not going to> argue
with you; but I want to- point out certain things in the document
and then pass it to the Tribunal. You are not disputing that you
wrote the document dated 29 November 1938, of which a copy is
the first one in the bundle. That is the document dealing with the
handing over of Jews' property, taken by the SA, to the Gestapo.
Now, as I understood you yesterday, you are not disputing that you
did write that document, of which that is a copy? Is that so?

JUTTNER: I said yesterday that I recognized this document.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Would you look at the bottom
corner of that document, and you will find on it the stamp of the
SA Group Kurpfalz. Do you see that?



195



15 Aug. 46

JUTTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And do you see in the stamp
the letters "H," "W," and "G"?

JUTTNER: It looks something like that, yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, at the bottom, beside the
stamp, you will' see "z.d.A.," which is — do not let us waste time over
it — "zu den Akten" — "Put it in the file." Do you see the contraction,
"z.d.A."?

JUTTNER: Yes, I see it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, would you look at the
document which you are saying is not authentic, and you will find
on that the same stamp of the SA Group Kurpfalz, and the same
letters, ,! H," "W," and ,: G." Do you see that?

JUTTNER; Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: And do you see— I think it is
on the top of the second document — that is the document of the
11th — the contraction "z.d.A." in the same handwriting as on the first
document? Do you see that, at the top of the document, "z.d.A."?

JUTTNER: Yes, I see it.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, just two other points I
want you to see on that document, which is the report to the SA
Group of the Electoral Palatinate, Kurpfalz, dealing with a number
of Standarten. Would you look under "Standarte 145"? Now, do
you see that it says "Synagogue at Bensheim, Synagogue at Lorsch,
Synagogue at Heppenheim, Synagogue at Birkenau"? Look at the
next. Do you see that the next is the "Prayer House at Alsbach" —
"Gebetshaus in Alsbach," is it not?

JUTTNER: Which page, if I may ask?

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: It is in the list. It is the docu-
ment of 11 November and it is a list. It gives a series of Standarten,
and the first is 115, and the next is 145; do you see that?

JUTTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Do you see that after four syna-
gogues, the next one — I think it is "Gebetshaus in Alsbach." Do you
see that?

JUTTNER: Yes.

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, I want you to turn over
the page to the note for the files of the telephone call by the Fiihrer
of Brigade 50, Darmstadt, Brigadefuhrer Lucke. Do you see that?

JUTTNER: Yes.



196



15 Aug. 46



SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: Now, if you will look down to
\ the same group, you will see that it says, "The Synagogue in Bens-
heim. destroyed by fire. The Synagogue in Lorsch near Bensheim
destroyed by fire. The Synagogue in Heppenheim blown up. The
Synagogues in Rimbach and Birkenau destroyed." Now, does it say
the "Prayer Hall"— the word is "Die Bethalle in Alsbach"—
destroyed?

JOTTNER: Yes, "Bethalle in Alsbach."

SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: The same distinction is drawn
between the synagogue and a prayer hall, which is either called a
"Gebetshaus" or a "Bethalle." Now the other pages contain reports
of different Standarten.

My Lord, I am not going "to argue the point, but I wanted to
bring out these points from the witness, as he had challenged the
document.

[Sergey Romanov]

It was a huge trial, so of course a few inauthenitic documents among many thousands crept in.

As for judicial notice, it is obviously a problematic aspect of the trial. Nobody has claimed that judicial notice was invented for Nuremberg, but here it was used to accept "official governmental documents and reports of the United Nations, including the acts and documents of the committees set up in the various allied countries for the investigation of war crimes, and of records and findings of military or other Tribunals of any of the United Nations" as obvious facts, whereas they were no such thing (see: the Soviet Katyn report).

That said, the said acceptance did not mean that such evidence could not be questioned (see: the Soviet Katyn report), which ameliorates the concern somewhat.