by Lubomyr Prytulak
First posted on   www.xoxol.org/traw/bazilevskaya.html   10-Jul-2010 09:46am PST, last revised 16-Jul-2010 10:28am PST

A First Look At The Duty-Roster Area

The Trawniki ID Card that is commonly identified by its putative bearer together with its Dienstausweis number as "Demjanjuk 1393" contains a two-line duty roster written by hand in ink, as can be seen in Display 1, and whose two ink entries state:

22.9.42   L G. Okzow
27.3.43   Sobibor

The first duty assignment dated 22 Sep 1942 is to the agricultural estate Okzow, "L G." standing for Liegenschaftsgut, meaning large estate.

The second duty assignment dated 27 Mar 1943 is to the Sobibor command covering the Polish town of Sobibor as well as the German-run Sobibor Camp.

The Okzow line is written in a brownish-black ink, which will be referred to here as simply black.  The Sobibor line is written in brown ink.  Purple ink is the 12 Mar 1948 Russian translation of the German on the card by MGB translator Z. Bazilevskaya.  The MGB was the Russian secret police in 1948, successor of the CheKa-GPU-NKVD and predecessor of the KGB-FSB.

The relationship between the three above dates is important: Sobibor follows Okzow by approximately six months; Bazilevskaya follows Sobibor by approximately five years, and therefore follows Okzow by approximately five and a half years.

DISPLAY 1.  The three ink colors in the duty-roster area of Demjanjuk 1393 are black, brown, and purple.

The Mystery Of Two-Tone Arrows

Looming over the duty-roster area which we are discussing is a riddle which seems to have no answer, and indeed seems to have no significance, and yet was created deliberately, and anything created deliberately must have been actuated by some purpose or some motive.

DISPLAY 2.  The two Bazilevskaya arrows are enlarged and enhanced so as to bring out the uniform thickness of the arrow shafts.

The riddle is why the arrow shafts on Bazilevskaya's two arrows are two-tone, as can be seen in Displays 1 and 2, the left portion of each shaft being uniformly faint and the right being uniformly dark, and the transition between light and dark being sharp, and the shaft thickness not increasing where the shaft becomes dark, as would be expected if an increased ink flow had been produced by inceased pressure on the pen.  The reason for there being any arrows at all is that Bazilevskaya realizes that the German and Russian numerical expression of the date is identical (22.9.42 in the Okzow line, for example) so that nothing would be gained from re-writing that date in purple ink as part of her Russian translation.  Instead, Bazilevskaya draws an arrow connecting the existing date-of-duty-assignment to her Russian translation of the place-of-duty-assignment.

But why are the shafts of the arrows two-toned?  If two-toning had appeared in only one of the arrows, we might be inclined to shrug it off as some inconsequential slip of the pen, but when the two-tone pattern occurs in both arrow shafts, and with the sharp border between faint and dark appearing at approximately the same location within each shaft, intent is suggested.  Intent is suggested more unequivocally when attempts to duplicate the two-toning prove unproductive.  Altering the angle or pressure of the pen in mid-stroke produces nothing close to what is wanted, and will convince anyone who tries it that the sought-for two-toning cannot be produced casually or unintentionally or inadvertently, but rather that there must be some non-obvious method, some trick, which is not easy to stumble across, but which needs to be somehow devised, and which can then be deliberately implemented.


DISPLAY 3.  Arrows with two-tone shafts can be created deliberately by someone who has learned the method, but are unlikely to be created inadvertently.

To demonstrate that the task is achievable, Display 3 shows a couple of arrows with two-tone shafts created entirely in ink, and relying on no computer manipulation.  Rather than immediately disclosing the method of their creation, it will prove more instructive to see over the course of our analysis that this method reveals itself in observations that can be made of the card.  One may say that the sought-for method is written in code within the duty-roster section that we are examining, and that it will reveal itself as we learn to read that code.

But if two-toning a line is the deliberate application of a non-obvious procedure, then it must have a motive, and yet none comes to mind.  What would prompt Bazilevskaya to create two-tone arrows?  What advantage would it bring anyone?  What viewer of this Trawniki ID Card might be grateful to Bazilevskaya for having taken the trouble to two-tone her arrows?

No answers suggest themselves.  The mind, rather, is filled with the conviction that an ordinary arrow with a fully-inked shaft would have been easier for Bazilevskaya to produce, and would have been perfectly serviceable.  And not only serviceable, but superior, as a two-tone arrow rather than bringing any advantage, serves as a distraction in that anybody noticing it must wonder what its purpose is, and being able to think of none, will be perplexed.  What did Bazilevskaya gain from going to the trouble to create perplexity?  That is the mystery to which a solution may emerge as we continue examining the duty-roster area of the Demjanjuk 1393 Trawniki ID Card.

But before setting aside for the moment the question of two-toned arrows, we should ask whether all Bazilevskaya arrows that she may have drawn anywhere else are two-tone.  If two-toning brings any advantage, then why wouldn't that advantage be sought everywhere that arrows are drawn?

Searching for Bazilevskaya arrows in the duty-roster area of the other three high-definition Munich versions of Trawniki ID Cards (Juchnowskij 847, Wolembachow 1211, Bondarenko 1926) turns up none.  Searching for Bazilevskaya arrows in the pdf files that the Kremlin has made available for 48 Trawniki cards, however, comes up with the fifteen arrows spread over eight cards shown in Display 4 (and where we include Karataschew 1185 on the perception of its dashes being arrows with missing arrowheads).

Demjanjuk 1393
Two arrows

Kirelacha 415
One curved arrow

Jarosch 749
Four long and curved arrows

Babenko 869
One curved arrow

Karataschew 1185
Two curved dashes

Kabirow 1337
Three curved arrows

Rjasanow 2077
One curved arrow

Tschornopyskij 3684
One curved arrow

DISPLAY 4.  Fifteen arrows drawn by MGB translator Z. Bazilevskaya in the duty-roster area of eight Trawniki Cards.  The indistinctness of the Demjanjuk 1393 arrow shafts in the pdf image can be understood from Displays 1 and 2 to result from two-toning.  All other pdf arrows exhibit an unambiguous starting point, and a dependable solidity of shaft, which contraindicate two-toning, with a couple of exceptions showing interruption of solidity when arrows are extraordinarily long.

The two-toning, which Displays 1 and 2 above help us understand to be an abrupt transition in the arrow shaft from uniformly-faint on the left to uniformly-dark on the right, appears in the Demjanjuk 1393 degraded pdf image merely as a vagueness as to where the arrow begins, or as a doubt about its continuous solidity — which two characteristics we see in none of the pdf arrows on other cards, which do all begin at an unambiguous spot, and which do all continue with full solidity throughout, with two exceptions which perhaps it is permissible to exclude from consideration.  That is, arrows may be interrupted when they are extraordinarily long and perhaps passing through text, as in the case of two such arrows in Jarosch 749.

Although indubitable confirmation of the absence of two-toned arrows anywhere but on Demjanjuk 1393 awaits a release of higher-quality images by the Kremlin, one might say that the evidence available as of now tentatively supports the inference that two-tone arrow shafts appear only on the Demjanjuk 1393 card, thereby awarding that card its umpteenth badge of uniqueness.

Two Color Anomalies In The Okzow Line

Purple ink within the first "2"

DISPLAY 5.  The first "2" in the Okzow line contains purple ink.

As can be seen enlarged in Display 5, the first "2" in the Okzow date "22.9.42" appears to contain purple ink like that used by Bazilevskaya to write her Russian translations, supposedly five and a half years later.

Brown ink within the capital "O"

DISPLAY 6.  The capital "O" in the Okzow line contains brown ink.

As can be seen enlarged in Display 6, the top of the capital "O" in "Okzow" is in brown ink resembling the brown in the Sobibor line written supposedly six months later.  Flecks of brown can be seen embedded lower down within the black portion of that same "O".  A minor eruption of brown can be seen at the highest tip of the capital "G".

In short, the Okzow line that we initially took to be written in black proves to be composed of all three of the colors in use in the duty-roster area: black, brown, and purple.

Porcupine Wicking In The Okzow Line

DISPLAY 7.  Well over a dozen eruptions of porcupine wicking can be counted.

The often bristle-like emanations of ink from Okzow-line digits and letters are referred to here as "porcupine wicking", of which the enlargement in Display 7 captures over a dozen noteworthy examples.  Other prominent instances of porcupine wicking can be found elsewhere in the Okzow line, as for example the two instances visible in Display 5 — first a diffuse triangle shooting upward just left of the purple ink, and second a hairlike projection exiting the tail end of the "2".  It will prove to be significant that the top of the "O" which is in brown ink shows no porcupine wicking.

The origin of these bristles is clarified in Display 8 in which horizontal lines have been drawn using India ink applied generously with a wide-nibbed pen, first crossing through printed lines 1, 3, 5, and 7, and then these five lines blotted by pressing down with blotting paper, followed by the pen being dipped again in the same ink, and drawn through printed lines 2, 4, 6, and 8, but this time leaving the ink unblotted where it dried without assistance after several minutes, and where the unblotted lines can be seen to have produced two effects: the almost-total obscuring of the print underneath; a wicking not unlike the porcupine wicking in the Okzow line of Demjanjuk 1393.

Different papers produce different wicking patterns.  The paper which was eventually discovered to produce the porcupine wicking shown in Display 8 was packaging for ink-cartridge refills for Osmiroid pens, made in England but purchased in Vancouver about twenty-five years ago.


DISPLAY 8.  Porcupine wicking occurs on certain papers when an ink deposit is too large to dry quickly, and when it is left to dry unblotted.

A wet-ink deposit on an official document is a hazard that needs to be removed because that wet ink prevents the document from being stacked or folded or further worked upon or handled in any way, and so a location where pen and ink are available for the preparation of official documents will likely also be a location where blotting paper is available for the removal of wet ink.  Employees who work with ink discover that insufficient blotting leads to smudging and smearing, recognize blotting as indispensible and obligatory, and therefore employ blotting habitually.  That an entire line of writing was left on Demjanjuk 1393 wet enough to produce wicking suggests that an obligatory and habitual blotting was deliberately avoided, and for a reason that in the present context is readily grasped.  That is, it is evident from Display 8 that blotted ink leaves a transparent imprint.  To conceal something by covering it with an opaque ink layer requires a substantial deposit of ink that is allowed to dry unblotted.  As Displays 5 and 6 above have presented evidence that black ink may have been used to cover purple and brown ink, the discovery that this black ink was applied in quantity and left to dry unblotted supports the inference that it was being used to cover what lay beneath.

And what, more specifically, might have needed to be covered under an opaque layer of black ink?  Perhaps ink writing in a wrong color.  One wrong color for a duty-assignment line would have been purple, whose match with the purple Russian translation might invite the unwanted impression that it was not the German military that was writing duty-assignment entries in 1942-1943, but MGB agent Bazilevskaya in 1948.  Another wrong color would have been brown if used for both duty-assignment lines, as the matching colors might invite the unwanted impression that the two entries had been made at the same time, whereas their dates indicated that they were separated by six months — which might have led to the decision to change one of the brown lines, say the Okzow line, to black.

This line of speculation does not necessarily envision an entire line having been writtin in a wrong color and needing to be covered over, as it could have happened, for example, that a forger wrote in purple only the initial "2" in the Okzow line, or only a fraction of that "2", when he or she realized that the choice of color was unsuitable, or when someone pointed out to him or her that it was unsuitable, upon which occasion only a small amount of purple would need to be covered, but once the deep and black and wicking cover had begun, it needed to be continued to the end of the line.  Many confusions and fumblings and changes of plan can be imagined which might lead to several colors within a single line, and at several locations within that line.  Since no particular collection of confusions and fumblings and changes of plan can be proven, little is to be gained by speculating about them in detail.

In all such possibilities, though, the opacity of the covering ink is increased if the ink is dark, and if it is applied generously, and if it is left to dry rather than being blotted.  Unfortunately for the forgers, however, ink left to dry is susceptible to telltale wicking, and unprecedented wicking such as is evident in the Okzow line points strongly to the inference of opacity-creation through the drying of a substantial deposit of ink.  Nothing like this degree of porcupine wicking can be seen anywhere else in Display 1 above.  And no wicking approaching this magnitude can be found anywhere else on the entire Demjanjuk 1393 Trawniki ID Card.  And no wicking like it is to be discovered anywhere on the other three Trawniki ID Cards for which the Kremlin has made high-resolution-with-color reproductions available, namely Juchnowskij 847, Wolembachow 1211, and Bondarenko 1926.  No point looking for wicking in the numerous pdf images — their quality is so poor that they render even the strong Okzow-line wicking in Demjanjuk 1393 undetectible.

But significantly, no wicking can be found within the Okzow line where the ink is brown, or in other words within the top of the capital "O".  That brown ink did not need to be applied generously and then left to dry so as to become opaque for the purpose of hiding something underneath.  The brown ink was what was being hidden by the black ink.  It was the black ink that needed to be opaque, and therefore that needed to be applied generously and then left to dry unblotted, and so that ended up wicking.

And the method of producing two-tone arrows has now been glimpsed, and reveals itself particularly in a comparison of Display 8 with Display 3.  Yes, the trick of creating two-tone lines consists of drawing an ink line, then quickly, before the ink has a chance to penetrate deeply or to begin drying, pressing blotting paper to its left portion, the blotting paper which lies always at hand to anybody writing in ink on an official document.  And so at this point in our examination of the duty-roster area it begins to dawn on us that this section of the Demjanjuk 1393 card can be understood by means of the phenomena of blotting producing transparency and allowing to dry unblotted producing both opacity and wicking, and how these phenomena can be used to hide what would be embarrassing to display.

By the way, the faint-to-dark transition that may occur when the direction of a written line suddenly changes (as in the left-hand "1" in Display 11) is an entirely different phenomenon from the faint-to-dark transition that we have noticed in Bazilevskaya arrows and which takes place within a straight line.  The initial upstroke darkening as it approaches its peak in Display 11 results from a backflow of ink into the still-wet top of the upstroke, a backflow of ink which comes from the more-amply-inked downstroke.

A question whose answer is still awaited is why the capital "O" in "Okzow" should have been left so blatantly, so provocatively, variegated.

Three Anomalies Within Bazilevskaya's Cyrillic "Sobibor" ("Собибор")


DISPLAY 9.  Anomalies and discrepancies and irregularities spring up wherever one looks at the Demjanjuk 1393 card.

At pointer [1], the second "b" in the brown German "Sobibor" appears to lie on top of the "C" in the purple Russian "Собибор".  But if the German Sobibor lying on top means that it was written more recently, then the duty-assignment to Sobibor must have been written not in 1943 as it purports, but on or after 1948, which makes it counterfeit.

At pointer [2], we note what may be the same brown ink that appears in the Sobibor line incorporated into the base of the Cyrillic "C".  So in addition to the Okzow line changing color, now we have some Bazilevskaya purple translation changing color as well.

Pointer [3] traces Bazilevskaya's first attempt to complete the stem of the first of her two letters "б".  The printed Cyrillic "б" visible in the instant sentence does have its vertical stem on the left, whereas the same letter in Bazilevskaya handwriting does properly have its vertical stem on the right — this is simply a difference between printing and handwriting.  Anyway, after completing this Cyrillic "б", Bazilevskaya proceeds to add an amendation or "patch" whose path is traced by the pointer [4], but for which there seems to be no rationale.  Her first "б" was perfectly legible, and the patch draws attention to itself for starting too high within the oval, and for subsequently lying too far to the right of the original stem, and thus creating an irregular first "б" that differs more from her second "б" than before it was patched.  This patch of Bazilevskaya's is unique in that no other instance of patching can be found in her writing on any of the four high-defintion-with-color Munich-version Trawniki Cards.  Of uniqueness the Demjanjuk 1393 Card has no scarcity.

And how are these fresh irregularities to be explained?  At this point, the number and diversity of Demjanjuk 1393 irregularities has grown so large as to invite us to review three global explanations which are particularly suited to handling inundations of irregularity, it being possible not only that one of these explanations is largely responsible for the irregularities that we have been noting above, but possible also that any two of them are responsible, and even that all three of them are.

The Profound Incompetence Hypothesis

The fallback hypothesis relied on most often to date is that Kremlin forgery factories are riddled with mind-boggling slovenliness and incompetence.

The Red Herring Hypothesis

Kremlin forgers, aware that their Demjanjuk 1393 creation contains flaws, decide to flood it with fake flaws which will distract attention from the real flaws, and whose arbitrariness and senselessness will preoccupy and stump the defense and leave it floundering for explanations, and with many explanations that they do come up with falling short of utterly convincing precisely because the fake flaws are red herrings chosen for making no sense.  Any court evaluating the prosecution of John Demjanjuk — hope the forgers — will be impressed by the inability of the defense to explain the many irregularities, and at the same time will be distracted from their mandatory conclusion that the card is invalidated by its irregularities whether anyone is able to imagine a plausible explanation for each of them or not.

Bazilevskaya's Revenge Hypothesis

MGB translator Z. Bazilevskaya recognizes the evil of the regime that has conscripted her into its service, and grieves over the ravages that this regime has inflicted on her personally, on her family, and on her nation, and emboldened by her righteous indignation proceeds to sabotage the forgeries that she is asked to contribute to, and more particularly proceeds to sabotage Trawniki Card 1393 in the hope of aborting the Demjanjuk frame-up that she sees being hatched.

Realizing that any detected sabotage will end in her getting shot, she proceeds by embedding coded messages into the Demjanjuk 1393 card which she expects her superiors will fail to notice, but that future examiners of the card will both notice and decode, and which will lead to the card being discredited and John Demjanjuk freed from his persecution.

One of her coded messages is a reminder that all forgery factories enforce methodical use of blotters, because if they don't then extraneous ink ends up marring their creations, and that Bazilevskaya message can be read within the white circles in Display 10.  Faint-and-dark areas within the purple blotch circled on the upper-right, lying in the very midst of the crucial Okzow line to which Bazilevskaya's messages particularly apply, signals that Bazilevskaya knows how to use a blotter to produce both faint and dark areas.  This particular blotch may be described as two-tone, and it lies very near the two-tone arrows, and so it may be inferred that its two-toning was accomplished in the same way as the arrow two-toning.  Deliberate blotting of part of the wet ink in order to send a coded message is one explanation of these three instances of two-toning.  And the alternative explanation is?

But should not the prevalence of blotches be taken to indicate Bazilevskaya's naivete with respect to blotters rather than the opposite?  The answer must be that Bazilevskaya is not just a slob.  The blotching spread across Display 10 occurs nowhere else on the Demjanjuk 1393 card, and no blotching approaching it occurs anywhere else on the other three high-definition cards on which Bazilevskaya has written copiously.  Bazilevskaya, then, must rather be recognized for her tidiness.  The blotches strewn across Display 10 are a deviation from her norm, and might be taken not as sloppiness but as an attempt to attract attention to the question of blotting.  What causes blotches is mainly the spread of unblotted ink.  These blotches, then, raise the question "Doesn't Bazilevskaya know about blotters?"  And her usual neatness, together with her two-toned arrows and two-toned blotch, answer that question: "Bazilevskaya is very well acquainted with the use of blotters!"  The issue of blotters having been raised, anyone inspecting the card is more likely to appreciate that the entire Okzow line has been left to dry unblotted, and so on.

DISPLAY 10.  Bazilevskaya purple blotches convey the information that undisciplined use of blotters results in contamination by extraneous ink.

Next, as we have seen higher above, Bazilevskaya's two-toned arrows reinforce the message that she has a blotter and knows how to use it to produce more-transparent lines, and how to withhold it to produce more-opaque lines.  She reasons that someone who has studied ink lines will be surprised to see such two-toning, will realize that it must have been produced with the assistance of blotting, and will go on to infer that it has no purpose other than to convey a message.  These arrows sandwiching the Okzow line, one arrow just above and one just below, increase the chances of a future examiner of the card discovering that the arrows' message is directed at the sandwiched material.  The same can be said of Bazilevskaya's single two-tone blotch.


DISPLAY 11.  On the left is a normal digit "1" on the Demjanjuk 1393 Trawniki Card.  On the right is a normal digit "1" that has been overwritten by a very black "2".

After that, we read Bazilevskaya's coded message in Display 11 that a higher degree of opacity than can be achieved with her purple ink can be achieved with black ink, so that it is particularly when one sees unblotted black ink that one should look closely for uncovered edges of hidden material that may be peeking out, and — for practice — she gives us this easy Display 11 example.  On the left we see the "1" that on the card is written opposite "Wolldecken" signifying that Ivan Demjanjuk was issued a single wool blanket, and on the right we see a "1" overwritten by a black "2" which on the card is written opposite "Unterhosen" signifying that he was also issued two pairs of underpants.

If this superimposed "2" constitutes a mini-forgery, then the "1" noticeably sticking out from underneath the "2" makes it an inept forgery.  But if it is Bazilevskaya reminding us that it is particularly underneath opaque black ink that hidden material should be suspected, then it is the skillful transmission of a coded message, it is Bazilevskaya drawing our attention to the possibility that something may lie underneath deep black ink by pretending to hide that something under it so ineptly that we are sure to notice it.

After that Bazilevskaya hopes that we will notice the porcupine wicking which signals that the entire Okzow line has been written in heavy ink and unaccountably left unblotted, as can be inferred particularly from Displays 5 and 7.

After that Bazilevskaya treats us to a series of glimpses of what may lie beneath the opaque black of the Okzow line.  The peekaboo purple that we noted in Display 5.  The peekaboo brown on the upper tip of the capital "G", and the more-than-peekaboo brown forming the top of the capital "O", both in Display 6.

Bazilevskaya's message to look for ink overlap in more places than just the Okzow line is encoded in her insertion of brown within the base of the purple "C" in "Собибор", as shown in Display 9, Pointer [2].  Or maybe the message here is that some brown from the second "b" in the German "Sobibor" slopped over onto the "C" in "Собибор", signalling that brown duty-assignment postdated purple translation.

Still within Display 9, but now at Pointer [1], Bazilevskaya's writing the brown Sobibor over the purple Собибор reverses the order in which the two are supposed to have been written, or in other words further reinforces the impression that they were written on the same occasion, or within a short time of each other.

And in her patching of her Cyrillic "б", Bazilevskaya sends the information that she does not work merely as a translator, but also as an editor authorized to linger over a card with pen in hand and do touch-up work so as to lend the card the appearance of authenticity, but by creating her patch negligently, she signals also that she would rather see her effort fail than succeed.

These diverse scraps of coded message can be encapsulated within a simple image — that of Bazilevskaya writing her Russian translation, and entering both duty-assignments, in one sitting.

But in such all speculations it is necessary to remain mindful that while there may be merit in attempting to comprehend the accumulation of Demjanjuk 1393 irregularities under the simplest-imaginable scheme, for the practical purpose of demonstrating that the card must be given no weight in a court of law, it is sufficient to no more than demonstrate those irregularities.  In the case of irregularities created by perhaps a team of unknown forgers working to achieve inscrutible effects, hitting on the true explanation of all the irregularities evident in their product is impossible, and providing such a comprehensive explanation is not an onus that is rightfuly imposed on the defense.  Rather, if the prosecution wants its Kremlin-supplied card to be believed, the onus falls on its shoulders to explain away all that card's irregularities.

Are The Demjanjuk 1393 Irregularities Really Unusual?

If irregularities are symptomatic merely of chaotic times, then they will be spread over all Trawniki cards, and in which case they need not be taken as indicative of forgery.  However, many Demjanjuk 1393 irregularities noted in previous articles have been shown to be absolutely unique.  No other Trawniki card bears two stamp-imprints overlapping its photograph.  No other Trawniki card has outside and inside stamp-imprints that don't match.  No other Trawniki card has been published with a different photograph.  And so on and so on.  And so it may be wondered whether Demjanjuk 1393 duty-roster confusion is similarly unique, or whether other cards manifest it as well.

Had the Kremlin supplied high-definition-with-color reproductions of its complete collection of Trawniki Cards, the question could be answered definitively.  However, for reasons which it neglects to announce, the Kremlin has supplied only three such high-quality reproductions in addition to Demjanjuk's, all other reproductions being offered only in low-quality, black-white, pdf versions in which the needed information cannot be discerned.  And these three high-quality cards contain only sparse data.

The Wolembachow 1211 duty roster is blank; apparently he was never assigned anywhere.  Juchnowskij 847 shows a single assignment, but it was entered by typewriter.  The only assignment entered in handwritten ink can be found on Bondarenko 1926, and it, along with its Bazilevskaya translation, appears in Display 12, and they show no wicking to speak of, no two-toning, no blotching, no color changes in mid-word, no peekaboo views of something lying underneath, no patching, and no anachronistic overlap.  The closest the Bondarenko 1926 duty-roster area comes to exhibiting any of these features can be found in its first period bearing a heavy load of ink left unblotted, and therefore shooting out a hairlike projection to the right, in expression of an uncontainable desire to porcupine wick.

In short, the duty-roster irregularities on the Demjanjuk 1393 Trawniki ID Card do not seem to be shared by other cards, and so do not seem attributable to any general chaos.  Once again, the Demjanjuk 1393 Trawniki ID Card is found to stand unique, and uniqueness is the recognized enemy of authenticity.


DISPLAY 12. The Bondarenko 1926 duty-roster is devoid of irregularities.