Vilis HāznersJudicial review and denial of motion to appeal

A10 305 336

The testimony of Mr. Mendelkorn is somewhat diminished by the fact that he was apparently misleading the court regarding his having seen his prior statement (Exhibit Rl, R2) and the trial attorney was ready to stipulate that the witness had seen a typed copy of his statement (Tr. p. 121-1331). It is also suspicious that despite his youth, he learned and remembered the name of five of those accused of being war criminals at the police station and also saw them at the synagogue burning (Tr. p. 602). This accuracy in his recollection contrasts with the fact that he did not remember knowing Mr. Loewensteln, another witness in the Riga ghetto (Tr. p. 3963).

Other problems arise with the testimony of witness Wulfowitz. He was somewhat evasive as to whether he had looked at a book (Ex. R6) on "Hazners", but knew that it contained the respondent's picture (Tr. p. 314-3184). He was also interviewed by Captain Scheckman of the Russian N.K.V.D., at least twice in 1944 and 1950 (Tr. p. 3075). This fact raises some questions in view of the fact that all of the witnesses were Latvians who continued to live under Soviet control in Latvia for a considerable time prior to immigrating to Israel, since the respondent contends that Soviet propaganda is behind the accusation that he was a war criminal. The testimony of Mr. Loewenstein indicates that the name "Hazners" was often mentioned in newspapers in Soviet Latvia on memorial days (Tr. p. 4006). His notoriety was stipulated by the Service (Tr. p. 1303-13077). This witness also admitted on cross examination that Inspector Radiwker told him the names of people he recognized after seeing their photographs (Tr. p. 3738).

He also testified about a gathering sponsored by Inspector Radiwker for the witnesses in Israel prior to their departure to the United States (Tr. p. 3939). This meeting included all the witnesses for this proceeding as well as those of two other alleged war criminals. None of the other witnesses admitted participating in this meeting. The witness also stated that in the first interview with Inspector Radiwker he picked out a photograph of the respondent in military uniform, but in the course of the second interview, he recognized the same man in civilian dress (Tr. p. 43410, 434A11, 43112, 43513). Prior to the second interview, he was told by Inspector Radiwker that he was going to see another picture of the same person he had identified, dressed in a different way, among the other pictures (Tr. p. 46214).

Other questions arise regarding the testimony of witness Ljak. It was never made clear how she learned the respondent's name by observing the man hit her sister-in-law from a

25