The Witness That Cannot Survive Cross-Examination, Part IV

Part I tried LGGRTC through institutional impeachment. Part II tried LGGRTC through its own documents and through one of its own historians’ public confession. Part III set out the legal architecture, Article 6 of the European Convention as the legal ceiling, and the seven paths available to the Lithuanian government, each, in my view, carrying its own exposure on the public record. The arc began with the prosecution of Artur Fridman for a Facebook post about his grandfather. It has, in my view, become something larger. Part IV closes the series.

I am not part of Fridman’s defense. I do not speak for his lawyers. I write as a documentary filmmaker who has spent five years recording the Baltic Holocaust, and as a former Soviet citizen who recognizes the institutional architecture of official truth. Soviet vocabulary returns in the close because the architecture has returned. The close is, in my view, the lesson Lithuania is about to teach the world, whether or not it intends to.

LGGRTC’s operative function, on the record this series has set out, is not research. It is gatekeeping. It decides which memories are safe for the state. It decides which memories endanger Jews. It decides which institutional falsehoods are protected by procedure. It launders state doctrine into evidentiary form, then retreats into personal, subjective opinion when retraction is demanded. The Center has been described in those terms not by foreign critics alone but by one of its own historians, by Lithuania’s own Seimas oversight discussions, by Lithuania’s own Seimas-established expert Council, and by the state’s own letters and broadcasts. Each description is documented in Part II.

In the Soviet Union, I knew institutions that operated this way. They were appointed, credentialed, protected, and tasked with producing conclusions the state required. The conclusions did not have to survive examination because examination was not part of the architecture. The architecture also included a vocabulary. Critics were vulgar. Findings rested on belief. Failures of evidence were reclassified as personal opinion when accountability arrived. The labels were not adjacent to the operation. They were the operation.

Lithuania now calls the same structure European memory policy.

LGGRTC as the case study

The Fridman trial is therefore, in my view, not only a Lithuanian event.........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)