Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Discuss the alleged Nazi genocide or other wartime atrocities without fear of censorship. No bullying of fellow posters is allowed at RODOH. If you can't be civil, please address the argument and not the participants. Do not use disparaging alterations of the user-names of other RODOH posters or their family members. Failure to heed warnings from Moderators will result in a 24 hour ban (or longer if necessary).
rollo the ganger
Posts: 6232
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Nov 04, 2016 7:33 pm

Nessie wrote:Do you agree there should be consistency and standards in evidencing? Yes or no?
Do you agree there should be consistency and standards in evidencing? Yes or no?
Do you agree there should be consistency and standards in evidencing? Yes or no?
Do you agree there should be consistency and standards in evidencing? Yes or no?...
Nessie's back into "robot" mode.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27626
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Nessie » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:15 pm

This is working well. Three pages and denialists are just trolling the thread because they know agreeing to consistency and standards with evidence means they are fucked.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

rollo the ganger
Posts: 6232
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 12:34 am
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by rollo the ganger » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:21 pm

Nessie, I've already given you my answer:
rollo the ganger wrote:You can post any "evidence" of the Holocaust you want Nessie. A rock. A fossil sharks tooth... ANYTHING!
We can all make our own judgement as to whether the "evidence" provided is relevant, correct, and/or probative. We don't need your "stacked" rules to handicap the discussion.

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:21 am

Nessie wrote:This is working well. Three pages and denialists are just trolling the thread because they know agreeing to consistency and standards with evidence means they are fucked.
"Denialists"? Just few posts ago you said "we"...

Oh, I know, "we" is just used when you want the "denialists" agree with your absurdities. But once the "denialists" disagree and expose your absurdities, then there is no more "we", it becomes "denialists".

Moreover, you are not in a position to lecture others about rules of evidence. You had been misquoting witness, misinterpreting evidence and outright lying about sources.

You were offered several times for an agreement on a scientific method to determine the truth of a witness statement. Remember the philosophers methods I offered some time ago? You just dismissed without any consideration.

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:35 am

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:Incredulity is the default position when statements that are identical or very similar are given by different witnesses. That suggests collusion and an agreement or instructions to witnesses as to what to say. Some discrepancies, especially on details are expected as witnesses get different views, recollect with different words and have differing memories.
Yes, that is also another default position for incredulity.
So the differences in details make the witnesses more credible.
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:So the differences in details make the witnesses more credible.
Discrepancies and contradictions between witness statements does not make any "witness more credible"; instead it make the witness statements very dubious.
Not when you have witnesses describing events that lasted a long time, they were not together all the time and in their own words.
Refutation of your above statements:
4.5 Evaluation of the testimony of a witness

After the witnesses have been heard, the party or parties must be given an opportunity of making observations. The observations may be made either in oral proceedings following the taking of evidence or exceptionally in writing after transmission of the minutes of the taking of evidence. The decision on this matter will rest with the competent department. The parties may file requests accordingly.

Only when this has been done should the competent department proceed to evaluate the evidence. Where a witness's testimony which is crucial to the decision has been challenged by a party but the department regards it as credible, or where a witness's oral or written testimony is disregarded in its decision as being not credible, the department concerned must state the grounds for its view in its decision.

In evaluating a witness's oral or written testimony, special attention should be paid to the following:

(i)
what is important is what a witness can relate concerning the points at issue on the basis of his own knowledge or views, and whether he has practical experience in the field in question. Second-hand assertions based on something heard from third parties are for the most part worthless on their own. It is also important from the point of view of the evaluation whether the witness was involved in the event himself or only knows of it as an observer or listener;

(ii)
in the event of long intervals of time (several years) between the event in question and the testimony, it should be borne in mind that most people's power of recall is limited without the support of documentary evidence;

(iii)
where testimony appears to conflict, the texts of the statements concerned should be closely compared with one another.
Apparent contradiction in the testimony of witnesses may sometimes be resolved in this way. For example, a close examination of apparently contradictory statements by witnesses as to whether a substance X was commonly used for a particular purpose may show that there is in fact no contradiction at all, in that while one witness was saying specifically that substance X was not used for that particular purpose, the other witness was saying no more than that substances like X, or a certain class of substances to which X belonged, were commonly used for this particular purpose without intending to make any statement regarding substance X itself;

(iv)
an employee of a party to the proceedings can be heard as a witness (see T 482/89). The possible partiality of a witness determines how the evidence is assessed, not whether it is admissible (see T 443/93).
Source: http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-t ... ii_4_5.htm
Representation of the parties and their respective submissions on appeal

(...)

[3] Both in his heads of argument and in his oral submissions Mr Nel submitted the following:

(...)

3.2. The magistrate was not impartial in the conduct of the trial. He posed questions not limited to elucidation or clarification of evidence, but meant to favour the state case. The magistrate erred in failing to draw a negative inference from the contradictions between the state witnesses’oral evidence in court and their statements to the police, and in finding that the deviations between the two were not material.

(...)

[19] I have looked at the number, nature and extent of the inconsistencies or contradictions in the evidence of the complainants, and I am convinced that in the light of the appellant’s defence such contradictions and inconsistencies impact negatively on their credibility, regard being had to the appellant’s suspicion that the state witnesses conspired to incriminate him falsely.

(...)

[45] The SCA also dealt with the assessment of the evidence of child witnesses in rape cases in the matter. Salduker JA, writing the unanimous decision of the court, stated the following at paragraphs [14] and [15]:

[14] In any event, it appears to us that the appellant is entitled to an order that his conviction and sentence is set aside because the state failed to discharge the onus resting on it. The evidence of the child witnesses was not carefully scrutinised. The contradictions and inconsistencies were not properly considered, nor the possibility that they might have been put up to it by their mother. In this fundamental regard the trial court erred.

(...)

[59] I agree with Mr Hiemstra’s submission that this court may safely ignore the medical evidence of Dr Radebe completely. The main reason for this, apart from the fact that it is inconclusive as readily conceded by Mr Hiemstra, is that it is effectively neutral as it does not implicate the appellant. His evidence does not corroborate the complainants’ version as it does not connect or link the appellant as the specific person who committed the rape - it remains just neutral. There are also other good reasons for ignoring it – Dr Radebe’s testimony was not only unsatisfactory in many respects, but also downright contradictory in some material respects.
Source: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAFSHC/2015/13.html
Completing an officer’s witness statement

This page tells you how to write an officer’s witness statement for an investigation. If you need to produce a witness statement as an investigating officer it will be a chronological (in order) account of the evidence you can give.

(...)

- make sure you are being even handed, it would not be right to include everything that proves the prosecution case and exclude all material that might contradict it.

(...)

What you must avoid using in a statement

You must try and avoid:
- jargon or language that others may not understand, where you have to use it you should explain what it means
- ambiguities, contradictions or gaps which may be revealed on cross examination
- irrelevant facts or information
- hearsay, unless you clearly identify it as this
- anything that might be seen as ‘expert opinion’ unless you are one.
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... _clean.pdf
Impeaching a Witness’s Credibility Through Prior Inconsistent Statements

50A:10 INTRODUCTION

Frequently, litigation turns on the credibility of a witness. Even after all the pleadings are drafted, volumes of documents have been produced, oral examinations have been conducted, expert reports have been written, and motions have been ruled upon, often a case will still come down to the simple matter of whose witness a judge chooses to believe.

As a result, a witness’s credibility is of the utmost importance. If the judge believes your witness’s version of events, you may win; if the judge does not find your witness credible, you are likely to lose.

One of the primary purposes of cross-examination is to impeach the credibility of adverse witnesses. By impeaching the credibility of a witness you can reduce or even eliminate the weight the trier of fact gives to their evidence. This is most commonly achieved by pointing the trier of fact to the witness’s self-contradictions in prior inconsistent statements written or uttered by the witness.
Source: http://www.shibleyrighton.com/ModuleFil ... PDF?id=386
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.

(...)

38. In the instant case, there have been major contradictions/ improvements/embellishments in the deposition of witnesses which cannot be ignored when they are examined in the correct perspective. The chain of links connecting the appellant with the crime appears inconclusive. It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labeled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular, in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief. “Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test the credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.” It is in fact, the entirety of the situation which must be taken into consideration.
Source: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgs1. ... name=40376
RECORDING AND PROOF OF CONTRADICTIONS AND OMISSIONS, THEIR EVIDENTIAL VALUE AND APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OF HOSTILE WITNESSES.

(...)

In every criminal trial, whether it may be before the Magistrate or the Court of Sessions, prosecution has to examine its witness or witnesses in order to prove its case against the Accused. After examination of witnesses in the criminal trial, the prosecution submits before the court that the evidence of all prosecution witnesses should be believed and the case against Accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ultimately, prosecution is insisting for the conviction of the accused on the basis of the evidence adduced before the court. It is the case of prosecution that the witnesses examined are reliable and the evidence of the witnesses is trustworthy. On the other hand, the defence counsel is submitting before the court that the prosecution witnesses are not worthy to be relied upon. The testimony and evidence of all the prosecution witnesses should be discarded in toto. The prosecution witnesses are not reliable. They are deposing falsely before the court. The aforesaid argument of the defence counsel is always based on the contradictions which are proved during the examination of each of the witnesses. Therefore, on the basis of proved contradictions, the defence counsel submits that there are several contradictions on material points. The prosecution witnesses have deposed something else for the first time in court which is not stated by them when statement was recorded by the police during course of investigation u/s 161 of Cr. P .C. There are several modes of impeaching the credit of the witnesses. Proving of contradictions is one of the mode to impeach the credibility of witnesses.
Source: http://mja.gov.in/Site/Upload/GR/summar ... -01-15.pdf


I challenge you to show examples where "differences in details" from "witnesses describing events that lasted a long time" made "the witnesses more credible".

Aryan Scholar
Posts: 4649
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Aryan Scholar » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:36 am

Aryan Scholar wrote:
Nessie wrote:
Aryan Scholar wrote:
I just have. The first quote opens with the point that it is hard to find any case without some contradiction or discrepancy and when there is none coaching is suspected. It goes on to say witness will describe events with their own words and depending on what they saw of the incident, hence the differences that will appear. The second quote goes on to reinforce that point and it confirms discrepancies or contradictions do not necessary mean lying.
Where is the "more credible"? There is no sentence suggesting a witness is "more credible" because of discrepancies and contradictions. Where in the quotes there is any suggestion that "discrepancies or contradictions do not necessary mean lying"?
You mean you wanted those specific words :lol:

They are texts describing what to expect with witness testimony and they are clear that very similar statements suggest collusion (which in case you did not know is not credible evidence) and that discrepancies and contradictions happen when people relate what they saw in their own words.
You are, of course, not telling the truth.

No sentence in the first source suggests discrepancies and contradictions makes a witness statement "more credible". The sources only says that if the "witnesses are not tutored, they would come out with a natural and spontaneous version on their own", not the they are "more credible". The first source also only says two or more witness "will narrate the same in his own words, according to his own perception and in proportion to his intelligence power of observation", not the witness are "not lying".

Moreover, the source continues:
Further, corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable. On appreciation of evidence, witnesses can be broadly categorised in three categories viz. unreliable, partly reliable and wholly reliable.

In case of a partly reliable witness, the court seeks corroboration in material particulars from other evidence. However, in a case in which a witness is wholly reliable, no corroboration is necessary. It is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessarily to be corroborated by another witness.

The court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number or the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time­ honoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise.

The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence, rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction.Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence.
Source: http://www.lawkam.org/evidence/discrepa ... ness/6067/

In accordance with the first source you provided Wiernik "evidence is not wholly reliable", therefore "corroboration in material particulars from other evidence" is necessary. This corroboration must be "credible and trustworthy", otherwise the the accused may be acquitted.

The above sentences in red refutes this particular statement from you:
Nessie wrote:You obsess over small details, most of which can be easily explained by fallible human memory and the emotive way testimony was written, because you have nothing to counter the major issue, TII was a death camp with gas chambers. No witness describes it in any other way. None.
The "quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses" describing there was homicidal gas chambers in Treblinka concentration camp is meaningless to determine if what they say is true or not; what really matter is the "quality of evidence" corroborating their testimonies.
Testimony by several witnesses may be contradictory. Isn’t that perjury?

What is Perjury?

A person commits the crime of perjury when he deliberately and intentionally makes false statements under oath. He will not be charged with perjury unless the evidence demonstrates that he is intentionally lying and not just contradicting himself. The same is true for multiple witnesses whose testimony contradicts that of other witnesses.
The second source does not say discrepancies and contradictions makes a witness statement "more credible" or the witness "is not lying". Instead it only says a witness will be charged with perjury if "evidence demonstrates that he is intentionally lying and not just contradicting himself".

The second source continues:
The discrepancies that exist between witnesses are used by attorneys in court for a variety of legitimate reasons, like testing a witness’ credibility, arguing about the sufficiency of the evidence and ultimately searching for the truth. It is up to the fact finder (either a judge or a jury) to decide which witness to believe, if the witnesses give contradictory testimony. When there are discrepancies between witnesses it is certainly not necessarily a matter of perjury.

The judges and prosecutors responsible for enforcing the law recognize that in court witnesses will contradict each other in the search for truth. To prosecute all these witnesses for perjury is not a good idea because it could have a chilling effect on the justice system’s ability to prosecute criminals. A witness who fears he will be prosecuted for perjury because his testimony differs from someone else’s testimony will not be willing to come to court.
Source: http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/crim ... itness.htm

In accordance with the second source you provided, Wiernik discrepancies and contradictions would be "used by attorneys in court for a variety of legitimate reasons, like testing a witness’ credibility, arguing about the sufficiency of the evidence and ultimately searching for the truth".
Nessie wrote:So the differences in details make the witnesses more credible.
Nessie wrote:Not [dubious statements] when you have witnesses describing events that lasted a long time, they were not together all the time and in their own words.
Both statements already refuted here and now refuted again with the sources you provided (see above sentences in blue).

User avatar
been-there
Propositions Moderator
Posts: 8754
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:59 am
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by been-there » Sat Nov 05, 2016 9:49 am

Nessie wrote:Do you agree there should be consistency and standards in evidencing? Yes or no?

I am saying there is evidence of mass gassing, burial, exhumation, cremation and reburial.
So... Nessie claims there is evidence.
Yet curiously the experts disagree.
Below are a few of the 'expert' opinions — previously cited but ignored — admitting the clear fact of the lack of evidence:
“I ordinarily do not engage in debates with Holocaust revisionists. I did not do so at the Berlin conference either, but the essence of my talk was that, 'yes, there was a Holocaust, which is, by the way, more easily said than demonstrated'.
-- Raul Hilberg.
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.1-2/hilberg.htm
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1506&start=1200#p87342
Judge Gray wrote:"What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps?
The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence." Judgement 6:80

“The Defendants accept that the physical evidence remaining at the site of Auschwitz provides little evidence to support the claim that gas chambers were operated there for genocidal purposes.” Judgement 7.118

“I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in this proceeding.“ Judgement 13:71
--Judge Gray's verdict, Irving vs Lipstadt libel trial.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1506&start=1210#p87343
“Can you give me one scientific report that shows the existence of gas chambers anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory?”
defence counsel Doug Christie asked Hilberg in a day-long rapid fire of cross-examination.

“I am at a loss,” Hilberg replied.

“You are (at a loss) because you can not,” Christie said.


Professor Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of the European Jews, the “standard work” on the Holocaust, being cross-examined while appearing as an 'expert witness' at the 1985 trial of Ernst Zündel.
The Montreal Gazette, Jan 19, 1985. Pg. 14.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1506&start=1210#p87344

So, above we have a few expert opinions admitting the clear fact of the lack of evidence.

Here is Nessie's idiotic miscomprehension and stupid denial of it:
Nessie wrote:Been-there, sound bites is not evidence. The Nazis made a very good job of making sure there was no overt physical, documentary, photos, film etc evidence which clearly showed a gas chamber in operation. Many criminals do as much as they can to hide their crimes. They could not hide all of the witnesses and that includes Nazis such as Oskar Groening who came forward to confirm they exist...
"When people who are honestly mistaken learn the truth,
they either cease being mistaken
or they cease being honest"
-- Anonymous

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27626
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Nessie » Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:56 am

Aryan Scholar wrote:..... You had been misquoting witness, misinterpreting evidence and outright lying about sources.
Saying that without evidencing is the kind of stupidity I want to see ended.
Aryan Scholar wrote:You were offered several times for an agreement on a scientific method to determine the truth of a witness statement. Remember the philosophers methods I offered some time ago? You just dismissed without any consideration.
I considered it and you could not show how the philosophers provided a scientific method to determine lying.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27626
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Nessie » Sat Nov 05, 2016 10:58 am

rollo the ganger wrote:Nessie, I've already given you my answer:
rollo the ganger wrote:You can post any "evidence" of the Holocaust you want Nessie. A rock. A fossil sharks tooth... ANYTHING!
We can all make our own judgement as to whether the "evidence" provided is relevant, correct, and/or probative. We don't need your "stacked" rules to handicap the discussion.
My argument is that the debate here is handicapped by a lack of consistency and standards in evidencing.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

User avatar
Nessie
Posts: 27626
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Consistency and standards in evidencing.

Post by Nessie » Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:08 am

been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:Do you agree there should be consistency and standards in evidencing? Yes or no?

I am saying there is evidence of mass gassing, burial, exhumation, cremation and reburial.
So... Nessie claims there is evidence.
Yet curiously the experts disagree.
Below are a few of the 'expert' opinions — previously cited but ignored — admitting the clear fact of the lack of evidence:
“I ordinarily do not engage in debates with Holocaust revisionists. I did not do so at the Berlin conference either, but the essence of my talk was that, 'yes, there was a Holocaust, which is, by the way, more easily said than demonstrated'.
-- Raul Hilberg.
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_6.1-2/hilberg.htm
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1506&start=1200#p87342
Hilberg has not admitted there is a "lack of evidence" with that statement. I say there is evidence and the experts agree. They do not diagree as you have just lied about.
been-there wrote:
Judge Gray wrote:"What is the evidence for mass extermination of Jews at those camps?
The consequence of the absence of any overt documentary evidence of gas chambers at these camps, coupled with the lack of archaeological evidence, means that reliance has to be placed on eye witness and circumstantial evidence." Judgement 6:80

“The Defendants accept that the physical evidence remaining at the site of Auschwitz provides little evidence to support the claim that gas chambers were operated there for genocidal purposes.” Judgement 7.118

“I have to confess that, in common I suspect with most other people, I had supposed that the evidence of mass extermination of Jews in the gas chambers at Auschwitz was compelling. I have, however, set aside this preconception when assessing the evidence adduced by the parties in this proceeding.“ Judgement 13:71
--Judge Gray's verdict, Irving vs Lipstadt libel trial.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1506&start=1210#p87343
“Can you give me one scientific report that shows the existence of gas chambers anywhere in Nazi-occupied territory?”
defence counsel Doug Christie asked Hilberg in a day-long rapid fire of cross-examination.

“I am at a loss,” Hilberg replied.

“You are (at a loss) because you can not,” Christie said.


Professor Raul Hilberg, author of The Destruction of the European Jews, the “standard work” on the Holocaust, being cross-examined while appearing as an 'expert witness' at the 1985 trial of Ernst Zündel.
The Montreal Gazette, Jan 19, 1985. Pg. 14.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1506&start=1210#p87344

So, above we have a few expert opinions admitting the clear fact of the lack of evidence.
Indeed there is a lack of physical evidence for the gas chambers. That has never been denied.
been-there wrote: Here is Nessie's idiotic miscomprehension and stupid denial of it:
You are a bully.
been-there wrote:
Nessie wrote:Been-there, sound bites is not evidence. The Nazis made a very good job of making sure there was no overt physical, documentary, photos, film etc evidence which clearly showed a gas chamber in operation. Many criminals do as much as they can to hide their crimes. They could not hide all of the witnesses and that includes Nazis such as Oskar Groening who came forward to confirm they exist...
That is why there is a lack of physical evidence and why the witness testimony is the major evidence for gassings.
Consistency and standards in evidencing viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2721#p87772
My actual argument viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2834

Scott - On a side note, this forum is turning into a joke with the vicious attacks--and completely unnecessary vitriol--that everybody is making upon each other.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests