The Odessa File (1974)
LINK >>> https://urlin.us/2tlaOD
The Odessa File (1974)
Suspicious, Peter rings Klaus' home from his hotel and having had no answer is wary, and sees the armed assassin who is waiting for him. Peter sneaks into the house and awakes Klaus' mother: she mistakes him for a priest and begs him to pray for her son. He then tackles the assassin and manages to kill the man. Whilst exploring Klaus' safe he uncovers a book detailing every fake ID Klaus created and detail the real identity of those he created the fake IDs for. Peter takes the file and hides it in a train station locker, later giving the key to Sigi, lest anything should happen to him.
Peter victorious returns to the Israelis and details all he has found but refuses to disclose the location of the file until Roschmann has been apprehended. The Israeli agents reluctantly agree to Peter's demands and he then leaves for Roschmann's home where he finds him living an opulent life as a munitions factory owner. Peter manages to gain access to the mansion and evade his security before confronting Roschmann at gunpoint. Peter reveals Salomon Tauber's diary to Roschmann who attempts to deny everything, claiming Peter has been misled. Peter then discloses to Roschmann, Salomon's description of the murder of a fellow German Wehrmacht officer at the end of the war. Peter goes through the unique details of the cowardly murder and then discloses that the Wehrmacht officer was in fact Peter's father. Roschmann realising he is about to be exposed, panics and goes for his gun forcing Peter to defend himself. Peter returns fire at Roschmann killing the former SS officer.
The detailed ODESSA files obtained by Peter are used to arrest numerous Nazi war criminals including high-ranking members of the police. Later Roschmann's factory mysteriously burns to the ground before any rockets are delivered to Egypt.
Based on a Frederick Forsyth novel. I've read a number of those. No real page turners, but enjoyable reads mostly. The movie has pretty much the same effect on me. Nothing and nobody stands out and even the story has the occasional hick-up. The segment with the delirious old lady in particular. She basically just hands over the titular file Whoever wrote that; shame on you. Double shame actually, because it's part of one of the few thrilling sequences the movie has, so that didn't entirely work either anymore. Even so, it's about Nazis who haven't given up their old habits. That always attracts my attention and after Voight reads Tauber's diary about the Butcher of Riga early on in the movie, you just want to see that scumbag go down. Even if it takes a little over two hours.
Two of the best parts go to Englishmen. Noel Willman is chillingly suspicious as one of Peter's interrogators; this movie makes me want to see Willman's Kiss of the Vampire again. A young Derek Jacobi plays an ODESSA underling who takes care of his old mother. A crucial plot point has the nervous Jacobi holding the file of the title in his safe -- it's a binder carrying the photos, names and secret identities of all of the ODESSA villains. A useful item for Peter to gain possession of, don't you think
I concur in the result reached, but would state my own reasons for disposing of ground of error # 1. In this ground of error appellant complains he "was denied the right to legal counsel at the entering of his guilty plea on June 24, 1974.' In his brief he urges that counsel who represented him was neither retained nor court-appointed. The record reflects that the guilty plea was entered on July 12, 1974, not June 24, as asserted by the appellant. The record reflects that counsel was appointed on July 12, 1974, on the same date appellant executed a pauper's oath. Appellant does not raise a question of the failure to execute a written waiver of the ten days' preparation period (see Article 26.04(b), Vernon's Ann.C. C.P.), but urges that at the time counsel was advising and representing him he had not been formally appointed. The file mark on the order appointing counsel dated July 12, 1974, did not reflect the time of day the order was entered. Even if the order was actually signed and entered after the entry of the guilty plea, I cannot conclude that reversible error is reflected because the trial court permitted the trial to proceed knowing that the appellant was represented by appointed counsel. Therefore, on the record that everyone agrees is before us, I would overrule appellant's first ground of error.
Unlike the majority, I would not hesitate to consider the testimony developed at the hearing in the trial court while it still had jurisdiction of the case. See Article 40.09, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. While the majority may be technically correct, if the hearing was on motion for new trial filed two months earlier,[1] I think we spin judicial *549 wheels unnecessarily when the majority suggests that the appellant go back to the trial court for possible collateral attack upon the conviction relating to the effective assistance of counsel in order to bring back to this court the very same testimony which is now in the record before us. It is observed that the trial court has jurisdiction to conduct a hearing to correct the record, see Article 40.09, Sec. 7, supra, and may hear oral arguments and decide from the arguments and briefs filed whether to grant a new trial. See Article 40.09, Secs. 11 and 12, supra. Further, this court has on occasion remanded a cause on appeal to the trial court so that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of due process and other constitutional claims could be resolved by a hearing conducted in the trial court. We have subsequently considered the testimony in such hearings in disposing of the grounds of error on appeal. See, i. e., Kincaid v. State, 500 S.W.2d 487 (Tex.Cr. App.1973); Hullum v. State, 415 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). It seems a bit ridiculous that we can consider testimony under these circumstances and not the testimony developed at the hearing in the instant case where the constitutional issue of effective assistance of counsel is involved. The lack of finality of a criminal judgment is an ever increasing problem for the courts of this country, and our procedures should be flexible enough to put to rest questions raised on appeal once and for all rather than relying upon procedural technicalities relating to motions for new trials to sidestep questions while suggesting the questions can be raised again by collateral attack which will again consume the time of the trial court and of this court at great and additional expense to the taxpayers where the appellants are indigent. No judicial economy is here involved.
[1] It is noted that the appellant waived the time in which to file a motion for new trial and accepted sentence. The motion for new trial, subsequently without the sentence being withdrawn, was never acted upon by the court. The record does not reflect that the hearing was upon such motion for new trial or that the complaint now raised on appeal was the basis of such motion. The difficulty with the instant case is that it is not clear just why the court proceeded with the proceeding or upon what motion, oral or written, precipitated the hearing.
This unexpected turn of events caused great upheaval for the Oglesby family. As president of SDS, Oglesby traveled constantly giving speeches, attending meetings, and organizing political protests. He even traveled to Cuba and North Vietnam with SDS. Within months of his appointment as president, the F.B.I. began following him and building an extensive file on him, his family, friends and fellow SDS members. SDS was often accused of being a communist organization because of their political beliefs and the way they chose to organize themselves. It was a huge transition for Oglesby to go from having a secure, white collar job in the defense industry to being the spokesman for a radical student organization. The stress only intensified as Oglesby was away from home more and having a hard time balancing his lifestyle as the president of SDS with his family's needs. He and Beth moved from Ann Arbor to San Francisco hoping to alleviate some of their stress, but the pressure was too much and they ultimately divorced in the late-sixties.
By the late 1980s, Oglesby was fully immersed in research relating to the end of World War II, research he first conducted while writing The Yankee and Cowboy War. In 1988, he formed the Institute for Continuing De-Nazification aimed at organizing efforts to bring full public disclosure to top-secret government documents containing information about the relationship between the Gehlen Organization, formerly the intelligence network of West Germany, and the U.S. government. Oglesby filed suit against various agencies in the federal government claiming the intelligence documents should be publicly available under the Freedom of Information Act. With the help of attorney James Lesar, this lawsuit has been moving through the federal court system for over two decades, resulting in the release of thousands of pages of classified, top-secret government documents. These documents form the backbone of Oglesby's research on the Gehlen Organization and the post-World War II settlement between Germany and the United States. Although, Oglesby has yet to publish a full-length book on this topic, he has lectured and written several extensive articles in this subject.
The collection contains Oglesby's drafts, notes, outlines, correspondence, writing fragments, manuscripts, and research materials like articles, book excerpts, newspaper clippings, and interviews. F.B.I. and C.I.A. documents pertaining to the Gehlen Organization and Oglesby's work with SDS are included as are the legal papers that document the lawsuit he filed to obtain these classified materials. Also present are notes, research materials and drafts relating to his memoir, referred to early on as "Ravens on the Wing," but published as Ravens in the Storm in 2008. Finally, correspondence, family histories, and photographs provide some insight into Oglesby's personal life. 59ce067264