Posted on August 24, 2010 at 10:01 am

Is Elie Wiesel a perjurer?

By Carolyn Yeager

Elie Wiesel stated under oath while giving testimony in the trial of Eric Hunt in San Francisco, California in July 2008 that the number A7713 was tattooed on his left arm. (see Where is the Tattoo? on this site)

Wiesel should have been asked to show his tattoo to the court at that time, but he wasn’t. This was a failure of the defense, for sure. But obviously, at that time, Mr. Hunt, the defendant, was not questioning whether Elie Wiesel had been an inmate of Auschwitz-Birkenau.

Since then, Mr. Hunt and others have uncovered video photography of Wiesel’s bare left arm from all angles, leaving no reasonable doubt that no tattoo is there. Backing up this conclusion is the fact that Wiesel has also famously refused to ever show his tattoo when requested to do so. For those who will retaliate that Wiesel may have had the tattoo removed, he said as late as March 25, 2010 that he still had the number A7713 on his arm. (see Where is the Tattoo?)

From this, the average man on the street would probably agree that Elie Wiesel has committed perjury (a criminal offense) if he does not indeed have the number tattooed on his arm. The law, according to,  says:

When a person, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the U.S. authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; (18 USC )

In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

However, in practice, the question of materiality is crucial. Perjury is defined at as:

the “willful and corrupt taking of a false oath in regard to a material matter in a judicial proceeding.” It is sometimes called “lying under oath;” that is, deliberately telling a lie in a courtroom proceeding after having taken an oath to tell the truth. It is important that the false statement be material to the case at hand—that it could affect the outcome of the case. It is not considered perjury, for example, to lie about your age, unless your age is a key factor in proving the case.

So the question becomes:  Was the status of Elie Wiesel as a survivor of at least a seven-month incarceration at Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1944-45, in which case he would certainly have been tattooed on his left arm, as he states himself, material to the guilt or innocence of Eric Hunt in light of the charges that had been brought against him? Certainly, Eric Hunt, not long out of college at the time and who had been assigned to read Night in school, had come to doubt the truth of Wiesel’s assertions and descriptions in the book, and believed that if he could confront Wiesel alone, unguarded, he could convince him to tell the truth.

Does the suspicion that Wiesel necessarily lied in his book Night about what he saw and experienced at Auschwitz-Birkenau because he lied about the existence of a tattoo which he has always claimed as proof of his credentials as an Auschwitz survivor, exonerate Eric Hunt from some of the charges brought against him by the State of California? Is it material to the case? Perhaps not, but it does show cause for Eric Hunt’s desire to speak to Elie Wiesel in an unguarded moment, which was what he was attempting to do.

If Elie Wiesel cannot be legally found guilty of perjury because of questions of materiality, he will certainly be guilty of perjury in the eyes of the public if he does not produce the famous tattoo A-7713 on his arm—the sooner the better. We are waiting, Mr. Wiesel.

Watch a new, short video on the subject.


”Auschwitz survivor Sam Rosenzweig displays his identification tattoo.” From Wikipedia   According to the information below, this man was in the “regular” series—numbers not preceeded with a letter of the alphabet. Note also that the tattoo is on the outside of the left forearm.

This is the best looking tattoo I could find on the Internet. If you want to have your faith in the Auschwitz Holocaust story badly shaken, google “Auschwitz tattoos” (or any variation thereof) – Images,  and see what comes up. Frightening! Of the little that is there, most look like the numbers are way too big, and you find the same few people exhibiting their specimen.

However … George Rosenthal, Trenton, NJ, an Auschwitz Survivor, has written an “authoritative” account at Jewish Virtual Library  based on “documents” obtained from The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (Sorry, no pictures here either, or on the USHMM website.  Elie Wiesel was a major driving force in the creationof the USHMM; why didn’t he volunteer his tattoo to be pictured on their website as an example of what a genuine tattoo looks like? Why does the USHMM have no images of a tattoo?)

Mr. Rosenthal writes:

The sequence according to which serial numbers were issued evolved over time. The numbering scheme was divided into “regular,” AU, Z, EH, A, and B series’. The “regular” series consisted of a consecutive numerical series that was used, in the early phase of the Auschwitz concentration camp, to identify Poles, Jews, and most other prisoners (all male). This series was used from May 1940-January 1945, although the population that it identified evolved over time. Following the introduction of other categories of prisoners into the camp, the numbering scheme became more complex. The “AU” series denoted Soviet prisoners of war, while the “Z” series (with the “Z” standing for the German word for Gypsy, Zigeuner) designated the Romany. These identifying letters preceded the tattooed serial numbers after they were instituted. “EH” designated prisoners that had been sent for “reeducation” (Erziehungshäftlinge).

In May 1944, numbers in the “A” series and the “B” series were first issued to Jewish prisoners, beginning with the men on May 13th and the women on May 16th. The “A” series was to be completed with 20,000; however an error led to the women being numbered to 25,378 before the “B” series was begun. The intention was to work through the entire alphabet with 20,000 numbers being issued in each letter series. In each series, men and women had their own separate numerical series, ostensibly beginning with number 1.

According to this, since there was never a “C” series, the maximum number of prisoners that could have been tattooed after May 1944 was 45,378.

Under “Notes” at the bottom of the page, four books are listed, all by holocaust historians. Are these the “documents” referred to? It also says Source: Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the very bottom of the page, as if referring to the entire page. This Center is located at the University of Minnesota. The affiliated faculty reveals mostly Jewish names.

I report all this because I’m looking for authoritative sources for the exact placement of the tattoos on the left arm, but one doesn’t find that answer even at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Museum. Why all the uncertainty? Could it be because so many pseudo-survivors have tattooed themselves in unusual ways and places, and the authorities don’t want to nullify their legitimacy?

23 Comments to Is Elie Wiesel a perjurer?

  1. by Amanda

    On November 11, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    how dare you? Elie Weisel has not “conned the world”! Why cant you understand what this man has been through? Maybe you should read his book.. Otherwise, give him the respect and honor he deserves, because he does great things. Im sure if you had gone through the same thing, you would not be saying such ridiculous, rude statements. Enough conspiricy! Leave him alone and go worry about more pressing matters, rather than wasting a whole website on lies and RUDE and negative comments. I am shamed at what you have written. Please take my feelings into consideration, because they are legitimate. Good bye “C Y”, hopefully you will get some manners. “We are waiting.”


  2. by Meya

    On November 30, 2010 at 8:11 pm

    how can you people just barge into this man’s life you dont know for sure and if you beleive this i advise you to check out some web sites were you can edit videos and pictures , picnik , photobucket , fotoflexer , photoshop , and many many more


  3. by Natasha

    On January 1, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    You’re ignorant, callous, accusatory, flippant, and unsympathetic. Have you ever read his book? If you had I’m pretty sure you would be able to tell that he was there. Elie Wiesel is a hero, a respected man. I advise you quite taking up useless space with this junk. You disgust me with the words you throw at this wonderful man who has gone through much more pain than you would ever be able to fathom.


  4. by Carolyn

    On January 4, 2011 at 1:47 pm


    If you’ve read this website you would know I have read his book. You should read the relevant articles and pages here so that you will get another point of view on his book than the one you’ve learned in school.

    How do you know that this man has gone through much more pain than I would ever be able to fathom? Because I haven’t written a book about it?


  5. by Severus Snape

    On January 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Amanda laments, “I am shamed at what you have written. Please take my feelings into consideration, because they are legitimate. Good bye “C Y”, hopefully you will get some manners. “We are waiting.”

    This whole statement is a logical fallacy Amanda. Appeals to emotion are not legitimate arguments when it comes to historical fact and inquiry. You should know this if you’ve had any scholarly education at all.

    Meya, I’ll take you seriously when you learn how to spell and use commas properly.

    Natasha: “You’re ignorant, callous, accusatory, flippant, and unsympathetic. Have you ever read his book?”

    I know **I** have. I read “Night” last year. The most amazing “fact” that stood out to me was that Elie Wiesel CHOSE — of his own FREE WILL — to flee from the advancing Red Army under SS protection. He called it a “death march” like so many others, but the very fact that he survived means that this is a LIE on his part. It was not a “death march” or he would have died.

    Don’t be angry with this site and its founder because it throws your distorted worldview into question. Instead, try reading what it says with a critical and inquisitive eye. And cease with the appeals to emotion.

    You want to know what a Holocaust is? Then read about a REAL one for once:


  6. by Peter K.

    On January 7, 2011 at 5:46 am

    Yes Amanda, how dare we pursue the Truth? How dare we ask questions about one of the silliest, most asinine stories ever collected?

    Honestly, you must think that there are no consequences for what you do in this life. But of course, if the science that shows these stories to be ONE BIG LIE is completely over your head, you probably wouldn’t understand what research into the Near Death Experience (NDE) has come up with.

    And frauds such as PMH Atwater aside, the NDE experience has shown that there are long lasting consequences for what you do in this life.

    I suggest that you deal in Truth, not deception. But it really is your choice, as nobody else can make that decision for you.


  7. by Anonymous

    On January 25, 2011 at 11:35 pm

    Amanda (the first comment on this page),

    The author of this blog fully understands. She just chooses to try and “con the world” herself. Why? Publicity. Some people love causing trouble and often the only way to do that is to lie and make things up. Try not to get upset. The only conspiracy going on here is the one of the Holocaust Deniers. They are the liars. That’s all you need to tell yourself.


  8. by Mannstein

    On January 31, 2011 at 8:03 pm

    Elie Wiesel left Auschwitz with the German SS when given a choice to remain behind to be liberated by the Red Army.

    Why did he decide to leave with the SS and end up in Mauthausen thereby further helping the German war effort?

    Does he know something he isn’t telling us?


  9. by Carolyn

    On February 1, 2011 at 7:29 am

    Hi Mannstein. Say, when did Elie “end up in Mauthausen?” His story is he went from Auschwitz to Buchenwald. But I ask, was he ever really in either place? There are no records for him … and where is that Auschwitz tatto?

    It has been well said: To get the correct answer, it’s necessary to ask the right questions. That’s what I’m trying to do here. What do you think?


  10. by Mannstein

    On February 2, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    Hello Carolyn, I made a Typo error it should have been Buchenwald. In any case both he and his father chose to leave Auschwitz and head West with the SS instead of waiting for the Red Army.

    Incidentally, as far as I know, Wiesel has never given an explanation of why he made this choice.

    I fully agree with you about asking the right questions.


  11. by Carolyn

    On February 3, 2011 at 9:20 am

    Wiesel did give an explanation, for whatever it’s worth, in both Night and later in his memoir All Rivers Run to the Sea. I have not discussed this issue on this website, which exists to question above all whether he really is a camp survivor. Arguing about the kind of thing you brought up is exactly what they like us to do, so we won’t ask this far more important question.


  12. by Mannstein

    On February 3, 2011 at 6:14 pm

    What about his claim that the Germans treated his injured knee in the Auschwitz camp hospital where he remained for sometime to recuperate? This is contrary to the usual tale that all Jews that could not work would immediately be dispatched to the gas chambers.


  13. by Carolyn

    On February 4, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    Yes, it is.


  14. by carol

    On March 17, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    it’s a disgust that people would actually do this.


  15. by j-dawg

    On April 15, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    yall are dumb.. leave the man alone. if i went thru all of that and got a tattoo like that i would get it removed too!


  16. by Carolyn

    On April 15, 2011 at 12:58 pm

    But j-dawg,
    “the man” has said he didn’t have it removed. He has said he still has it on his arm. Read about it here:
    March 25, 2010, University of Dayton: A student asked Wiesel if he still has his concentration camp number and if it serves as a reminder of those terrible experiences. “I don’t need that to remember, I think about my past every day,” he responded. “But I still have it on my arm – A7713.

    Just a year ago. Can it be any clearer. You should read all that’s on this site before you call it dumb.


  17. by rachelle

    On May 1, 2011 at 12:58 am

    Oh my gosh, you guys ALL need to go get lives, and dedicate them to something that would actually help this world. Instead of tearing apart history, and analyzing people who were apart of it.


  18. by ross

    On May 28, 2011 at 2:13 pm

    Weasel and all religious jews can quite easily commit perjury, without moral qualms. Since, once a year they recite the Kol nidre, repealing them from any vows or oaths they make. As absurd as it sounds to us gentiles.


  19. by Carolyn

    On May 29, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    That doesn’t make it okay with the law. The Kol Nidre doesn’t cut it with the U.S. Justice system, or not legally anyway. The KN is just something that allows Jews to excuse themselves before G-d and their congregations.



  1. Czy Elie Wiesel jest krzywoprzysięzcą? « Stop Syjonizmowi
  2. Jaka rewolucja? « Grypa666's Blog
  3. Czy Elie Wiesel jest krzywoprzysięzcą? « Dziennik gajowego Maruchy
  4. Open Letter to Professor Emir Ramic « Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina

Leave a Reply

You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

By submitting a comment here you grant Elie Wiesel Cons the World a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

This website makes use of some non-original copyrighted material. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information Click Here