The Sassen documents were used by the prosecution in the trial of Adolf Eichmann as an admission by party opponent.
Posted by The Pete Quiñones Show, Checked
- Sources
- 1 contradict1 support1 context
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 50%
The Pete Quiñones ShowOct 10, 2026
The sources show the prosecution relied on the Sassen tapes and transcripts as evidence, but the court barred the bulk of the 716-page Sassen 'confession' and admitted only the 86 handwritten pages and certain excerpts. None of the sources address the 'admission by party opponent' legal basis the claim names, so that element is unverified.
A detail. The sources confirm the gist; the verdict faults a detail such as a date, number or wording.
What was said
… that he couldn't be indicted for murder because he had no he had nothing to do with murdering anybody, you know, Jewish or otherwise, or or he'd never killed any human being, even in military combat, because Eichmann never served in, in Einsatz, you know. So the proceedings getting bogged down with, uh, pouring over the Sassen documents, which were purported to be an admission by party opponent and thus admissible traditionally. So the prosecution was endlessly reading these statements, these lurid statements that Sassen attributed to Eichmann. …
The Pete Quiñones Show · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Contradicts. A 1961 NYT report says the court ruled against inclusion of the prosecution's ghostwritten Sassen 'confession' and accepted only the 86 handwritten pages plus certain excerpts, a major setback to the prosecution.[1]
Supports. The USHMM trial record states the Sassen tapes and transcripts were 'relied upon heavily as evidence during Eichmann's trial' and that the bulk became known as the Sassen Document during the 1961 trial.[2]
Context. The defense called the document a forgery and argued the prosecution should have called journalist Willem Sassen for cross-examination, while the Israeli archive list records the Attorney General opposing limits on using Eichmann's memoirs against him.[1][3]
Context. No source addresses whether the prosecution offered the Sassen material specifically as an admission by a party opponent; that framing comes only from the claimant's passage, which cannot corroborate the claim.
Sources
3 sources: 1 tier 2, 2 not rated
- 1EICHMANN COURT BARS 'CONFESSION'; Rejects Long Transcript of Statements Made in '57 EICHMANN COURT BARS 'CONFESSION'nytimes.com · tier 2 · cited for: contradicts, context
- 2Eichmann Trial -- Sessions 16 and 17 - USHMM Collectionscollections.ushmm.org · not rated · cited for: supports
- 3List of Documents – Eichmanncatalog.archives.gov.il · not rated · cited for: context
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- Willem Sassen produced 600 pages of documents based on conversations with Adolf Eichmann about the war years.False
- Robert Servatius was the lawyer for Adolf Eichmann.True
- Israel did not allow witnesses considered tainted to participate in the trial of Adolf Eichmann.True
- Witnesses in the Adolf Eichmann trial provided testimony about gas chambers at Ravensbrück and Dachau.Can’t tell
- The U.S. Department of Justice proffered an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Jerusalem court in the prosecution of Adolf Eichmann.Can’t tell