Nexus - 1501 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

According to this document, Heusemann said that she had been identify them there, which is what Dr Bruck in his 1948 memoir able to verify that the teeth were Eva's because she recognised a indicated happened.” What is important is that in the record of "gold and resin bridge" that, with her assistance, Prof. Blaschke her 19 May interrogation, Heusemann stated, as established had inserted in the right part of Eva's lower jaw in the "summer of _ previously, that she had recognised drill marks left behind by 1944".°* Ata later date—no earlier than 23 July 1947— Prof. Blaschke on the fourth tooth in Hitler's left upper jaw the Heusemann was still being pressed for a full description of Eva time he extracted two adjacent teeth.” Hitler's teeth.* In this statement, she implied that Eva had a false The problem is, rather, that all of Heusemann's claims to have tooth in her upper right jaw—which she can only have done if the worked on Hitler's teeth—claims which are iterated on several 1945 bridge had been fitted after all!*° occasions in Hitler's Death—appear to be false. In early 1948, Such prolonged and intensive questioning is inconsistent with while still in American captivity, Prof. Blaschke gave an the idea that the information Heusemann provided had been interview in which he stated that Heusemann "cannot give a sufficient to establish that the teeth were Eva's. If so, why ask her positive identification because she knows only some X-rays of to go over the subject again and again? There are therefore plenty Hitler's teeth".“' Thus, Heusemann's knowledge of Hitler's teeth of hints of intrigue, but thanks to the fact that derived solely from the X-rays and not from only very brief selections from her personal experience. She can therefore interrogations are included in Hitler's Death, ' never have helped Prof. Blaschke work on 8 us, Feusemann s P , it is not possible to chronicle the . ' Hitler's teeth six times between 1944 and development of her story. The same goes for knowledge of Hitler Ss 1945, as she told her Soviet interrogators, ener Seen ers Peatan® | teeth derived solely anor om eee not those he gave in May 1945 during what from the X-rays and rays she had studied. She therefore had no appear to have been at least f fi ans of k i hether the X-rays inerogations | «OL From personal | rec iracely represented the condition of Heusemann's and Echtmann's fate experience. Hitler's mouth or that of someone else. supports the conclusion that the Soviets Once I realised that Heusemann had lied found something fishy about their evidence. about having worked on Hitler's teeth, I also Within two days of each other in August She can therefore began to doubt Heusemann's claim to have worked also on the teeth of Eva Hitler and many leading Nazis. According to the testimony she gave the Soviets, she had worked at the Reich Chancellery dental surgery from December 1944 until 20 April 1945. She specifically claimed to have helped Prof. Blaschke extract a tooth from Eva Hitler in April 1945. However, despite the relatively long period involved—around four months—I have found no account that corroborates her presence in the Reich Chancellery surgery, aside from the 1951, Heusemann and Echtmann were arrested by Soviet MGB (Ministry of State Security) officials. Heusemann was charged with "having treated Hitler, Himmler and other Nazi leaders until April 1945", while Echtmann was charged with "assisting Hitler and his circle". Each was sentenced to 10 years in a Soviet labour camp.*” Neither person appears ever to have been repatriated and it is a fair guess that both vanished in Stalin's vast, impenetrable gulag. It seems hard to credit the idea that their crimes really aforementioned contact between consisted of having provided Hitler and Heusemann and Echtmann that does other top Nazis with dental treatment; more likely, both paid the not prove that she really worked there. (Since Echtmann could never have helped Prof. Blaschke work on Hitler's teeth six times between 1944 and 1945, as she told her Soviet interrogators... ultimate price for trying to deceive Stalin. have been a participant in the same intrigues as Heusemann, his evidence is far from decisive.) X-ray deception During the period from 20 April to 2 May 1945, Heusemann is In the above discussion of the forensic issues concerning Eva also supposed to have remained in the Chancellery. Dr Bruck told Hitler's teeth, it became obvious that Heusemann's evidence was reporters that for safety reasons she had remained in the problematic to say the least. She told the Soviets and Dr Bruck — Chancellery "in the last days of Berlin". It is odd, then, that she that the bridge that was shown to her had been made recently, yet was not mentioned by Dr Kunz, who took over from Prof. it more closely resembles the bridge she claimed to have helped Blaschke at the Chancellery surgery on 23 April. (Dr Kunz Prof. Blaschke insert in the summer of 1944 than the 1945 bridge. apparently had no assistant at all.) My conclusion is that In view of the issues raised in relation to Eva's teeth that Heusemann was probably nothing more than an opportunist, undermine her credibility, it is important to ask whether someone who sought to profit from knowledge of the dental charts Heusemann was actually competent to assess the evidence she had gained in 1944(-45?) while working for Prof. Blaschke. concerning the teeth of the presumptive Hitler corpse discovered To this end, Heusemann appears to have recruited Dr Bruck. on 5 May. According to Dr Bruck himself, he renewed his By 10 May, the jawbones had been removed from the "Hitler" acquaintanceship with Heusemann on 4 May, when he located her corpse and placed, if we can believe it, in a cigar box and shown in the Pariserstrasse. It seems likely that this day she drew him to Heusemann. For our purposes it is unimportant whether the into her confidence and explained how she had enjoyed access to cigar box was ferried to Heusemann, as Soviet military Hitler's dental records. It is clear why Dr Bruck, despite being reconnaissance interpreter Elena Rzhevskaya claimed,** or Jewish, was a willing participant in the dental intrigues whether Heusemann was taken to SMERSH headquarters to surrounding the alleged corpses of Adolf and Eva Hitler. Thus, Heusemann's knowledge of Hitler's teeth derived solely from the X- -rays and a a a | not from personal experience. X-ray deception In the above discussion of the forensic issues concerning Eva Hitler's teeth, it became obvious that Heusemann's evidence was problematic to say the least. She told the Soviets and Dr Bruck that the bridge that was shown to her had been made recently, yet it more closely resembles the bridge she claimed to have helped Prof. Blaschke insert in the summer of 1944 than the 1945 bridge. In view of the issues raised in relation to Eva's teeth that undermine her credibility, it is important to ask whether Heusemann was actually competent to assess the evidence concerning the teeth of the presumptive Hitler corpse discovered on 5 May. By 10 May, the jawbones had been removed from the "Hitler" corpse and placed, if we can believe it, in a cigar box and shown to Heusemann. For our purposes it is unimportant whether the cigar box was ferried to Heusemann, as Soviet military reconnaissance interpreter Elena Rzhevskaya claimed, ** or whether Heusemann was taken to SMERSH headquarters to 42 = NEXUS She can therefore never have helped Prof. Blaschke work on Hitler's teeth six times between 1944 and 1945, as she told her Soviet interrogators... www.nexusmagazine.com DECEMBER 2007 — JANUARY 2008