Talk:John Demjanjuk/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mother's maiden name?

Wasn't John Demjanjuk's mothers maiden name Marshenko? If that is true, how does that exonerate him?

Please sign comments- and don't add stupid things like "DOuble Yeah," 58.178.25.207 00:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Marchenko is the name he quoted himself as his mother's maiden name. Turned out to be incorrect. Tabachuk was the real maiden name, the defense proved. He claimed to have forgotten that. But in 1948 he was only 28 - who does not remember his mother's name at that age? And to have chosen "Marchenko" at random. Come on, too good to be true. There may be reasons why his mother might have been known unofficially as Marchenko - her mother (Demjanjuk's grandmother) may have re-married, may have lived together with someone called Marchenko. Or his mother herself lived with a Marchenko before she got married to Demjanjuk's father. (If that sounds funny - look up Garry Kasparov) Or - and that's probably the real answer: Demjanjuk for some reason liked to use the name Marchenko. --193.190.172.92 14:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Demjanjuk actually claimed at his trial in Israel that he used the name Marchenko at the time of the war (regardless of what his mother's real maiden name was). Therefore, he claimed, any purported documentary evidence from the time referring to him as Ivan Demjanjuk must be false. Thus the subsequent discovery of documentary evidence showing that "Ivan the Terrible" was called "Ivan Marchenko" could certainly be seen as incriminating rather than exculpatory. In some ways, it has come back to haunt him, even if it was used by the Israeli authorities as a pretext to spare an old man whom they didn't have the heart to execute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.180.52 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Transcripts

Are there transcripts of the trials on line? If so links would be good. Rich Farmbrough 16:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

=>I've read a handful of the court opinions on Westlaw, a legal resource website. Citations to case law certainly would make the article more authoritative, but very few people can access these cases, so it is pointless to include these. However, I did find a transcript on CNN.com of a US Justice Department news conference on Feb 21, 2002 given by then US Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, Criminal Division and Eli Rosenbaum, Director, Office of Special Investigations, to CNN that confirms Judge Matia's ruling and makes mention of Demjanjuk's involvement at Sobibor. Specifically, Director Rosenbaum quotes some of Judge Matia's opinions in the ruling, stating that [Demjanjuk, at Sobobor,] "contributed to the process by which thousands of Jews were murdered by asphyxiation with carbon monoxide."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0202/21/se.04.html IntegrityCounts 01:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that some people do not have ready access to legal citations is no reason not to include them. There are many people who do have access (e.g. lawyers), and including them will lend credibility to any article that is written. John Paul Parks (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Specifics of the charges

What, exactly, did he allegedly do that was so horrible, even compared to other extermination came guards?

Nothing! I remember the earlier Israeli "trial". Dozens of jewish "Holocaust survivors" - some of whom may really have been in Treblinka - were paraded. All said how evil "Ivan the Terrible" was. No doubt the mythical "Ivan the Terrible" was a monster. But there wasn't a shred of evidence from any of them that Demjanuk was Ivan. Even a jewish court had to admit that there was "doubt" over the identification. This Ukrainian is being made a scapegoat.

Please sign comments! Ronan.evans 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The judge's decision was that seeing as how he couldn't prove he was not there then he must be guilty. Nothing was ever proved, hardly anything was charge - just implied. His first trial in Israel was embarrassing - a holocaust deniers delight. Hard to believe that the Israeli officials didn't know this was not true before they got egg in their faces.

Maybe so, but from an American perspective, he was found guilty of entering the US and getting citizenship under false pretenses. You cannot hide the fact that you were a concentration camp guard or a member of a Nazi organization. When my father-in-law emigrated to the US in the late 1950s, he had to show his de-nazification certificate to prove he had not been in the Nazi party or the SS (he had been in the Hitler Youth (as all in his generation were) and the Army (as a teenaged conscript toward the end of the war)). Which is why after it was clear he was not Ivan, he was deported back to Ukraine instead of extradicted to Israel. --Amcalabrese 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that prehaps we add a link or mention of Demjanjuk's political supporters (such as Pat Buchanan) --Amcalabrese 03:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The whole incident involving Demjanjuk demonstrates the danger of overzealous, revenge-driven, vindictive prosecution and the dire consequences that can result when the leadership of the United States acts merely to appease a foreign government (e.g. deporting Demjanjuk to Israel in the first place). John Paul Parks (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's also take note that the Israeli legal system showed a higher commitment to "blind justice" in this case that the government of the United States. The Israelis had stronger reasons that the Americans for wanting John Demjanjuk to be convicted and executed but the Israeli Supreme Court weighed the evidence, found it less than conclusive, reversed the conviction, and returned Demjanjuk to the United States a free man.

It would have been easy for the Israelis to have tried him on other charges -- the government of the United States certainly wouldn't have demanded his release -- but they didn't. Demjanjuk got fairer treatment from the Israeli legal system than he did from the United States. (71.22.47.232 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Holocaust box

Holocaust box should be present. Despite the fact Demjanjuk was found innocent his story is very much connected to the Holocaust. The only people who would use this page would be those reseaching the holocaust. If not for the Holcaust this mans story would be un-notewothy and thus not deserving of an article! Besides many Holocaust victims have the Holocaust box on their wikipedia pages. Ronan.evans 22:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

He was never retried because the first one was so embarassing and revealed things that noone - ie Israel - revealed. Another trial - ie complicity in gassing - could have turned into a true disaster.

Ronan, you have justified linking to this article from an article on the holocaust. You have not justified dominating this page with a Holocaust box. Anyone on this page who want's to find out about the holocaust can follow the links. The box is inappropriate for someone found innocent of the charge. Akihabara 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read my comment before wrting anything... ronan.evans 11:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article, the whole way through, reads as if it is trying to convince the reader that this man is guilty even though he has been found innocent. The problems start in the first paragraph with the multi-line separation between "accused of, tried for, convicted of, and sentenced to death for war crimes" and "he was later exonerated". These should be in the same sentence, or at least adjacent. The intervening text belongs elsewhere.

Another example is the summary given of the Israeli ruling. Ending with "they also contained doubt that he was in fact innocent" is POV and the whole interpretation of the ruling is intended to convey this impression.

It really needs work by someone without preconceived ideas; accordingly I have tagged the article. It should aim to just list facts without trying to sway the reader either way. The article has almost no references for such a controversial and presumably researched subject! There are many examples on Wikipedia of controversial subjects handled more sensitively. Akihabara 15:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The non-neutral POV is so obvious that perhaps it doesn't need to be fixed. As someone with no prior knowledge of this man, I came away with the impression that he is the victim of a witch hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.68.128.53 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming the article

It seems some Wikipedians want to rename the article about the Turkmen president Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow because they don't like the spelling of his name. Although Turkmen language is written with Latin alphabet and Turkmen language is the only official language of Turkmenistan, they can't support the idea that his name can be written with a "w" at thee end, because it comes etymologically from a Russian "в" and, in Russian names, we use to translitterate "в" by a "v". I think if this reason is accepted, we can consider that the "ju" of Demjanjuk comes from a Russian "ю" and then this article will have to be renamed "John Demyanyuk"! And the fact that Demjanjuk's name comes from Ukrainian and not from Russian won't be an argument since Berdimuhammedow is Turkmen and not Russian. If you have something to say about the subject, don't hesitate to post it here: Talk:Gurbanguly_Berdimuhammedow#Page_move. Švitrigaila 23:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be very silly. I've been following the Demjanjuk case, albeit loosely, since the early 1980s. He's always been refered to in the media as "John Demjanjuk". Wikipedians will expect to find him by the name as it is spelled in conventional and historical media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.61.125.201 (talk) 22:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Updated material

Here is the latest news. --Tom (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

His trial showed he was not a Treblinka guard - it also showed ( evidence supplied by the US government ) that Treblinka was a transit site anyhow. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Born in the USSR?

How could he have been born in the USSR in 1920, when it did not exist?/79.136.2.14 (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your right, since he was born during the Polish–Soviet War it is hard to tell who controlled Ukraine when he was born. I made an edit to point this out. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It still says that he was "[b]orn in the Soviet Union during the Polish–Soviet War". The entity "Soviet Union" (formally "USSR") did not exist at that time. The treaty for creation of USSR was signed on July 6, 1923, and ratified on January 31, 1924. Thus, he simply could not be born in the Soviet Union, no matter war or not. 194.44.31.194 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Confused text

The second half of the "trial in Israel" section is confused, with aberrant timelines and misidentified court cases. McKay (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did some work on it. Note there were 3 court cases in Israel. (1) the trial that convicted him, (2) the appeal that acquitted him, (3) hearing of petitions against his release. The text was mixed up between (2) and (3) before, hopefully it is ok now. McKay (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He was born not Kiev oblast but in Zaporizss'ka oblast. See his Sobibor ID [1].  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.82.222.114 (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) 

Current event

Shouldn't a current event header be put on? 99.138.180.199 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. It won't be current for long then we'd have to edit it out again. McKay (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The way I read the news, it's getting more current by the day. He's about to be deported to Germany, and tried there. Don't Be Evil (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I just added a current tag, as the court case is now ongoing, and is expected to last for a few months, or so. Arnie Side (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Torture section as OR

All but the first paragraph of the section '"Torture" as basis for reopening the case' seems to be WP:OR, a commentary on the strength of the parties' cases. The first paragraph, given proper cites, looks largely okay, if a bit editorial; it's relating the positions the parties have laid out in their arguments. I'd suggest dropping the analysis of the UN convention and of the prior immigration case that did not involve Demjanjuk. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a very clear cut case of "Synthesis of published material that advances a position", which is not permitted, see WP:SYNTH. I deleted all but the first paragraph. But the first paragraph is not good either, since it only seemed to be there in order to argue against it. A briefer summary of the cited facts in the first paragraph would be better. This does not need a separate section, either. McKay (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a line that I thought was superfluous, a decision made easier as the citation had expired. 147.8.242.149 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen the case

There's about 1500 words in the section "Motion to reopen the case", primarily because it's grown as editors keep adding the latest news story to it. It's way out of proportion to the article, and could probably be summed up along the lines of

In April 2009, Demjanjuk moved to reopen his case, but that motion was not granted. When the government attempted to deport him, Demjanjuk moved to halt the deportation, on the ground that he was too old and sick to be removed, and that removal would constitute torture. That motion was also denied.

The attention being given to minutiae of these motions (such as a stay being in effect for a weekend) are way out of proportion to other elements in this article. TJRC (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

He got deported, showing his guilt. Time to shrink this section and expand the section about how he murdered babies, elderly and women in Sobibor. Why are we spending so much time defending a murdered of babies? Meishern (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"He got deported, showing his guilt" - object. There are plenty of reasonable charges against him, but we need to await the verdict. Innocent until found guilty by an independent judge, that's one of the key elements distinguishing our civilization from regimes like the Nazi one. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I don’t want to start a war about this. I am making 0 edits regarding this. However if it walks like a duck and quacks, it’s a duck. There is an SS id card with his photo on it, and notations that he was transferred to Sobibor. I am not sure why the ID card is not present on this page. Face recognition software proved it, witnesses proved it, so I am not sure what else is needed, perhaps a film of him murdering children? He is a mass murderer, who makes Charles Manson seem like a decent guy. Lots of people are in prison on circumstantial evidence. Against him the evidence is strong if not overwhelming. This guy deserves to spend his golden years in prison surrounded by scum, and not on the back porch playing with his grandchildren. There will be no verdict. He will be found too old to stand trial. Germans are fond of releasing SS murderers because they are 'too old'. For some reason they always manage to live another 10-20 years after the German courts declare they are on their death bed. Yet I hope for a couple of years this animal sits behind bars. Meishern (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about facts backed up by reliable sources, not personal speculations or personal opinions. Meishern, you obviously haven't done your homework by awaiting the outcome of the trial. So save your propaganda for elsewhere! This TALK page is about suggestions to improve the article, not about pushing one's own agenda which you do. I therefore suggest that you take a hike and come back when you actually have something to CONTRIBUTE to this article. Nellov5 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The place of birth

Dubovi Makharyntsi is presently located in Koziatyn rayon Vinnytsia oblast [2]. Formerly it was Kiev gubernia. It never was Kiev oblast.--AndriyK (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely that Ukrainian SSR controled that territory in 1920. More likely it was Ukrainian Directoria or Poland.--AndriyK (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, found in the edit history a less dubious formulation and restored it.--AndriyK (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A show trial "in order to create a myth of German vigilance"?

It must be noted that a pundit like John Rosenthal considers the coming proceedings against this non-German to be a show trial "in order to create a myth of German vigilance" since "many homegrown and authentic Nazi war criminals are living in Germany". In The Demjanjuk Farce: Germany Prepares a Show Trial (Peons like Demjanjuk are targeted, while authentic Nazi war criminals live comfortably in Germany), John Rosenthal points out that "Germany’s pursuit of Demjanjuk creates the impression that Germany is extraordinarily thorough about prosecuting Nazi war crimes. And this indeed must be the point of the exercise — because the reality could hardly be more different. Since the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany in 1949, the German courts and the German legislature have displayed incredible indulgence toward Nazi war criminals, transforming the territory of the Federal Republic … into a more or less safe haven for them." Asteriks (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Such a strong claim should not be included based solely on one blogger's oppinion. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That person whom you dismiss as nothing but a blogger just happens to be a contributor to the Wall Street Journal. "Germany’s avid pursuit of Demjanjuk creates the impression that German authorities are vigilant about prosecuting Nazi war crimes" writes John Rosenthal further in Germany’s Double Standard in War Crimes Trials. "But closer consideration of the [Josef Scheungraber|Scheungraber] case shows precisely the opposite to be the case. It reveals the extremely high bar that has been set by German authorities for bringing charges against German suspects in Nazi-era war crimes cases. This high bar contrasts sharply with the extremely low bar that has been used in the case of the [foreign]-born Demjanjuk". Asteriks (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The point being, he's a 'contributor' to the WSJ. So what? It doesn't make him a legal expert. What he wrote is still 'one bloggers opinion'. Detmold 3/12/09 00:54 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.31.44 (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

German investigative TV Magazine report Mainz June 08, 2009 on ID Card issue

German invesigative TV Magazine "Report Mainz" said today in prime time TV that the a german FBI ("BKA") Dossier from 1987 was leakes to them containing the original classified analysis of the Trawniki ID Card. http://www.swr.de/report/-/id=233454/sgpaia/index.html The TV Magazine is a bit like 60 Minutes in the US. Most germans think that that magazine tells the truth. It is absolutely mainstream. The Reporters show all the Evidence they have to some Professors and Judges and they all conclude that the evidence against Demjanjuk is just not enough to convict him. Expecially the new 2009 Bavaria-FBI ("LKA Bayern") Dossier on the ID Card contains a big "Denkfehler" in that they did no Paper or Ink forensic analysis but base their Claim that the ID Card is no fake exclusively on the comparison of the Demjanjuk ID Card with three other Trawniki ID Cards from the same Source (russian).

In the end of the TV Report the Reporters like say that they are very very totally sorry to come up with a conclusion that might get applause from the "wrong side" but that the problem with the evidence is so severe that the whole trial might cause harm and grievence to holocaust survivers when based on such bad evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.54.28.83 (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that there will be no trial. They feel sympathetic toward their SS personnel too much to put them in jail. The best excuse is: "they are too old and sick." Look at Sobibor SS killer Karl Frenzel, after being declared by a German Court in the 1980's to be on his death bed, he is still alive and kicking 25 years later and selling his autographs on the internet. Now their excuse is that "There will be no trial since he will be acquitted anyway since the jury will admire him. This will cause harm and grievance to Holocaust survivors. So we might as well just let him go free and give him a pension and a house for services rendered." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meishern (talk • contribs) 22:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the article on him, Frenzel died 13 years ago.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

your sapience is astonishing. there is no such thing as a jury. i won't comment on the obvious insult to germany. 91.15.152.43 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The trial has started today: Source (in Polsih)--Paweł5586 (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

i don't think it's so much that germans are sympathetic towards ss veterans they're just tired (rightly or wrongly) of germans being targeted as monsters (i know demjanjuk is ukrainian, i'm referring to comment above about frenzel).Historian932 (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Occupation

i don't believe "Nazi Prison Guard" is an occupation.. "Prison Guard" rather is. there is enough space in the whole article to make clear whether he was a nazi. imagine the whole palette of professions arising from this. 91.15.152.43 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point. Was he actually a Nazi, i.e. a member of the NSDAP? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.55.2 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

-I don't see how he could have been a member of the NSDAP--he wouldn't have been a German citizen (and therefore not eligible) right? Historian932 (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he could have been a foreign-born Nazi. From his obituary in the Washington Post: "In mid-1942, Mr. Demjanjuk joined a force of non-German Nazi auxiliaries whose mission was to exterminate Jews in Eastern Poland. He became an armed guard of civilian prisoners at the Majdanek concentration camp in eastern Poland, at Sobibor and at the Flossenbürg concentration camp in Germany." --72.47.85.22 (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

New testimony

This might be relevant to the article: [3][4]. —Emil J. 12:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Demjanjuk not considered to be Marchenko....?

Shouldn't we give Ivan Marchenko ("Ivan the Terrible") his own article? I mean, Demjanjuk is not considered to be Ivan the Terrible, at least not in the eyes of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.155.113 (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Broken links

the fox news link (and probably others) are broken. the old fox news link http://www.fox40.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-germany-demjanjuk-timeline,0,7839587.story can not be found when searching their site. can someone find a replacement Not the same one (talk) 12:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

also: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g2v8DW3HMQZ6Y10UI-GQXPnez11QD97IE0R00

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Germany-Nazi-Guard.html\

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_demjanjuk

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1239710743699

are broken as well those are sources 2, 7, 32, 34, and 45

i have not removed them Not the same one (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ID card

Which one of the several mentionned ID cards is this one? Is there a larger picture somewhere? Apokrif (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs editing

The overall article is in need of a good edit to reduce duplication and correct tense. There are many statements that were undoubtedly present tense when entered but are now in the past. Additionally, several topics such as the deportation hearings have present tense discussions as if they were still in progress as well as past tense discussions acknowledging the deportation has already occurred. I agree with the commenter below that the deportation story unnecessarily dominates this article. I think I could help organize the article by combining duplicate sections, but I'm not familiar enough with the case to confidently re-write it from beginning to end. I think a total rewrite would move this article from the blow-by-blow account it currently represents to the more encyclopedia-like entry it should be. Any takers? Doomedtx (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but the last section - particularly the last two sentences are stunning. The text states that an expert says a wartime ID is genuine but it may have been made years after the war was over. Am I reading this right? It can't be true, can it? 159.105.81.31 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I rephrased that section. The expert said that the card matched other cards thought to have been issued at Trawniki, but he conceded that he couldn't disprove the defense's assertion that all of the ID cards were post-War forgeries. I don't know whether that's a reasonable defense or not - did they all come from the same archive? Joe in Australia (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

Let me remind everyone that everything about the trial should be well sourced considering the fact that John Demjanjuk is still living and the sensitivity of the subject. You can never really put too many sources in this situation. Kingjeff (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Freed from prison May 2011

It should be noted that after his conviction he was immediately released. See [[5]] amongst many other sources. 68.230.131.75 (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

"Ivan the Terrible"?

In the latest trial was it proven that Demjanjuk is indeed "Ivan the Terrible"? I'm just a wee bit curious since Ivan the Terrible was known to commit some of the most gruesome acts.Hoops gza (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't. He was convicted of crimes at a different place from where "Ivan the Terrible" was. This doesn't stop ignorant news agencies from continuing to call him Ivan the Terrible though. Zero^talk 14:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

ex post facto German law

Is this an example of an ex post facto crime? I mean, he was a German prisoner slash German conscript slash German guard at a German prison executing German laws and regulations (laws are national, not international which are termed "custom") under German orders literally all the way up the chain of command to the Dear Leader. If so, isn't literally everyone in the Germany military and government apparatus during WW2 is a criminal? Those who didn't follow these orders violated the then-current law (and are therefore criminals) and those who did violated some other, ill-defined (but still enforced) supranational law or are conspirators. What laws did he get sentenced for in Germany and when and by whom were these laws enacted? Int21h (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Germany. He's Ukrainian therefore he's guilty of the murder of 28,900 Jews. Of course the millions of Germans who were soldiers or guards were only obeying orders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.46.124 (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Scott Raab's premise

In the section "Displaced person claim" there is an observation by US journalist Scott Raab that Demjanjuk has been prosecuted for mere presence at the camp and that nobody has ever been convicted on this basis. After this: "Actually, Raab premise is incorrect...." Raab's premise is incorrect only if someone else has been convicted for mere presence. The only example given is Anton Geiser, who was prosecuted after Demjanjuk's current case began, and has not been convicted, and a comment on Geiser's case from someone who is not in a position to decide it. The entire rebuttal should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.217.162 (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

No response; disputed text removed. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 02:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)