63 Spring 2026 ntroduction The Eichmann Trial (1961) is widely understood as a watershed in witness-centered justice, the event that inaugurated what scholars call “the era of the witness.” Yet the sheer scale of survivor testimony, comprising over one hundred witnesses and nearly two million words, has long resisted systematic legal analysis. This essay draws on findings from a computational topic modeling study of the full Eichmann Trial corpus to offer a conceptual reexamination of the trial’s legal character. Rather than selecting a handful of testimonies for close reading, the study analyzed all voices simultaneously – survivors, defendant, and Court – revealing that the trial was significantly more legalistic and defendant-focused than its cultural memory suggests. Crucially, the Court’s judgment adopted the bureaucratic language of the accused rather than the experiential language of survivors. These findings raise broader questions about what law can and cannot hear, and what digital tools can reveal about the structural relationship between legal process and historical memory. I. The Problem of the Multitude When Israeli General Attorney Gideon Hausner rose to address the Court on the first day of proceedings against Adolf Eichmann in 1961, he opened with words that have since become emblematic of the trial itself: “When I stand before you here, Judges of Israel, to lead the Prosecution of Adolf Eichmann, I am not standing alone. With me are six million accusers.”1 The speech was theatrical, deliberate, and precise in its attention to quantity. Hausner’s proclaimed commitment to represent the multitude of victims shaped his central prosecutorial decision: to invite an unprecedented number of survivors, more than a hundred, to take the witness stand, unfolding their stories geographically across Europe and chronologically from early persecution through the death camps. The result was a trial unlike any that had preceded it. The Eichmann Trial became the first atrocity proceeding to concentrate on survivors’ narratives as its organizing architecture, and in doing so it inaugurated what scholars have called the era of the witness. Over the decades since, vast scholarship across disciplines, history, legal theory, memory and trauma studies, media studies and psychology to name a few, has analyzed the trial’s cultural and political legacy, its role in shaping Israeli and global Holocaust memory, and its performative dimensions.2 Listening to All the Voices: Digital Humanities Methods and the Legal Legacy of the Eichmann Trial* Renana Keydar * This essay is a conceptual and non-technical reworking of findings originally published as: Renana Keydar, “Changing the Lens on Survivor Testimony: Topic Modeling the Eichmann Trial,” JEWISH STUDIES QUARTERLY (2022). All empirical claims and data presented here derive from that study. 1. Cr. C (JM) 40/61 Attorney General v. Adolf Eichmann, 27 P.M. 1961 (169) Session 6 (April 17, 1961). 2. Annette Wieviorka, THE ERA OF THE WITNESS (Cornell University Press 2006); Yechiam Weitz, “Political Dimensions of Holocaust Memory in Israel during the 1950s,” 1 (3) ISRAEL AFFAIRS 129–145 (1995); Yechiam Weitz, “The Holocaust on Trial: The Impact of the Kasztner and Eichmann Trials on Israeli Society,” 1 (2) ISRAEL STUDIES 1-26 (1996); Shoshana Felman, “Theaters of Justice: Arendt in Jerusalem, the Eichmann Trial, and the Redefinition of Legal Meaning in the Wake of the Holocaust,” 27 CRITICAL INQUIRY 201–238 (2001); Hanna Yablonka, THE STATE OF ISRAEL VS. ADOLF EICHMANN (Schocken 2004); Leora Bilsky, TRANSFORMATIVE JUSTICE: ISRAELI IDENTITY ON TRIAL, LAW, MEANING, AND VIOLENCE (University of Michigan Press 2004); Anita Shapira, “The Eichmann Trial: Changing Perspectives,” 23 JOURNAL OF ISRAELI HISTORY 18–39 (2004); Idith Zertal, ISRAEL’S HOLOCAUST AND THE POLITICS OF NATIONHOOD (Cambridge University Press 2005); Leora Bilsky, “Forum: The Eichmann Trial Fifty Years On,” 29 I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=