Witness credibility

[Huntinger]

Now, tell me why your methodology of examining what only some witnesses said, ignoring the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and taking witnesses very literally, is a credible and reliable method of assessing witness evidence.

People can judge false stories due to their incredible nature; real memoirs like Pierre Berg and Peter Lantos have an air of realism. If one watches a documentary on say "the History of Cornwall", it is clear by the tone, ambience and credibility of the author that much is based on fact. Watching Lord of the Rings with Orcs, Goblins etc it is clear that this is fiction.

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

They didn't say that. I have never made such a claim. Now, you quote Himmler, Goering and Dr. Mengele denying that gassings took place at the AR camps and A-B kremas. You will not be able to do that, since none denied gassings at those places.

Nessie weasel dodges. Goering and Himmler both denied that there were any exterminations camps. Dr. Mengele blew up when his kid asked him about his supposed atrocities at A-B. Nessie is now demanding they use his exact words declaring "no gas chambers". What a disgusting weasel dodge.

No, that is hearsay. It has never been proven that steam was used.

"Hearsay" my shiny hiny. PS 3311 was a document with probative value admitted into record by the IMT. Men were hanged on the basis of such records. That is prima facie evidence that the IMT and other military tribunals were indeed marsupial escapades.

You are YET again mixing hearsay with eyewitness evidence. You are mixing what witness thought had happened with what they actually saw happen as if that is the same thing, IT IS NOT.

Bullshit! Bomba and Rajchman both stated that they were eyewitnesses. Rosenberg and Wiernik both claimed to have been eyewitnesses. No effing hearsay about it.

Now, tell me why your methodology of examining what only some witnesses said, ignoring the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and taking witnesses very literally...

Your claim about hearsay is bullshit. As far as taking the witnesses literally, Rajchman and Wiernik claimed that their books were true accounts of their experiences in Treblinka. They weren't writing mystery or romance novels. People who don't tell the truth in court are considered guilty of perjury. What the hell do you mean I shouldn't take them literally?

[Nessie]

Now, tell me why your methodology of examining what only some witnesses said, ignoring the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and taking witnesses very literally, is a credible and reliable method of assessing witness evidence.

People can judge false stories due to their incredible nature; real memoirs like Pierre Berg and Peter Lantos have an air of realism. If one watches a documentary on say "the History of Cornwall", it is clear by the tone, ambience and credibility of the author that much is based on fact. Watching Lord of the Rings with Orcs, Goblins etc it is clear that this is fiction.

No, you need evidence to be certain of accuracy. Otherwise you risk falling for arguments from incredulity, which are fallacies and inaccurate.

[Nessie]

Nessie wrote:

They didn't say that. I have never made such a claim. Now, you quote Himmler, Goering and Dr. Mengele denying that gassings took place at the AR camps and A-B kremas. You will not be able to do that, since none denied gassings at those places.

Nessie weasel dodges. Goering and Himmler both denied that there were any exterminations camps. Dr. Mengele blew up when his kid asked him about his supposed atrocities at A-B. Nessie is now demanding they use his exact words declaring "no gas chambers". What a disgusting weasel dodge.

It is not a weasel dodge, it is pertinent to the discussion. No senior Nazi claimed he had been to the AR camps or A-B kremas and there were no gas chambers.

No, that is hearsay. It has never been proven that steam was used.

"Hearsay" my shiny hiny. PS 3311 was a document with probative value admitted into record by the IMT. Men were hanged on the basis of such records. That is prima facie evidence that the IMT and other military tribunals were indeed marsupial escapades.

The claims about steam were hearsay. The court used hearsay evidence, though at the time, I do not think they realised the steam claims were hearsay and wrong. In any case, steam or gas, what was proven was that many had been killed inside chambers. Only deniers, decades later, without any evidence, have declared it did not happen at all.

You are YET again mixing hearsay with eyewitness evidence. You are mixing what witness thought had happened with what they actually saw happen as if that is the same thing, IT IS NOT.

Bullshit! Bomba and Rajchman both stated that they were eyewitnesses. Rosenberg and Wiernik both claimed to have been eyewitnesses. No effing hearsay about it.

They mixed hearsay with what they saw and you fail to identify which is which. They talked about how steam HAD been used, but none said he saw it being used. They ALL then said gas from an engine was used and they saw it happen (except Bomba who never claimed to have seen a gassing). It is obvious they are repeating hearsay that steam had been used, but then it was changed to gas.

Now, tell me why your methodology of examining what only some witnesses said, ignoring the difference between hearsay and eyewitness evidence and taking witnesses very literally...

Your claim about hearsay is bullshit. As far as taking the witnesses literally, Rajchman and Wiernik claimed that their books were true accounts of their experiences in Treblinka. They weren't writing mystery or romance novels. People who don't tell the truth in court are considered guilty of perjury. What the hell do you mean I shouldn't take them literally?

Because people do not write everything literally. People do use hyperbole and make estimations and mistakes. Courts recognise that and they also recognise that not believing a witnesses does not mean perjury. Evidence is needed to prove perjury. Only deniers think it is OK to make claims without any evidence.

[Turnagain]

Nessie trots out all of his tired claims of "hearsay", "exaggerations", "hyperbole" and "don't take them literally" for ALL of his so-called eyewitnesses. Lots of other people write books about harrowing episodes in their life without Nessie's excuses. Think Alexander Solzhenitsyn. So, no actual witnesses to the steam/gas/vacuum chambers, the graves, exhumations and cremations on the magic Jew barbeque. Just fantasies and Nessie's excuses.

[Nessie]

Nessie trots out all of his tired claims of "hearsay", "exaggerations", "hyperbole" and "don't take them literally" for ALL of his so-called eyewitnesses.

No, most of the Nazi testimony I have read is not probe to use of hearsay, hyperbole etc.

Lots of other people write books about harrowing episodes in their life without Nessie's excuses. Think Alexander Solzhenitsyn. So, no actual witnesses to the steam/gas/vacuum chambers, the graves, exhumations and cremations on the magic Jew barbeque. Just fantasies and Nessie's excuses.

Did Solzhenitsyn write a matter of fact, unemotional description of his time in the gulags, describing everything he saw in minute detail, with no mistakes?

https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/1 ... iii-iv-arh

“On the great Belomor Canal even an automobile was a rarity. Everything was created, as they say in camp, with 'fart power'.”
"In a temperature of fifty below zero [Fahrenheit] the musicians from among the non-political offenders played a flourish before and after each order was read."

[Turnagain]

Nessie wrote:

No, most of the Nazi testimony I have read is not probe to use of hearsay, hyperbole etc.

"...probe to use of hearsay...". What the hell are you talking about?

Did Solzhenitsyn write a matter of fact, unemotional description of his time in the gulags, describing everything he saw in minute detail, with no mistakes?

Are you saying that Solzhenitsyn was a liar? That he made up fantastic tales of how people were executed or how the cadavers were disposed of? Be specific.

[Nessie]

Nessie wrote:

No, most of the Nazi testimony I have read is not probe to use of hearsay, hyperbole etc.

"...probe to use of hearsay...". What the hell are you talking about?

Sorry, typo, should have been prone, not probe, so most of the Nazi testimony I have read is not prone to use of hearsay, hyperbole etc.

Victims tend to be more emotive and less matter of fact that perpetrators. Why are you surprised by that?

Did Solzhenitsyn write a matter of fact, unemotional description of his time in the gulags, describing everything he saw in minute detail, with no mistakes?

Are you saying that Solzhenitsyn was a liar? That he made up fantastic tales of how people were executed or how the cadavers were disposed of? Be specific.

I am not saying he was a liar. I have always pointed out that use of hyperbole etc is not a reliable or credible method of assessing witness credibility. It is possible to be unemotional, matter of fact and lie. It is possible to be very emotional, very prone to hyperbole and tell the truth. Corroboration on the other hand is a reliable and credible method of assessing truthfulness because it is independent of the witness and it is not affected by how the witness provides testimony.

[Huntinger]

Corroboration on the other hand is a reliable and credible method of assessing truthfulness because it is independent of the witness and it is not affected by how the witness provides testimony.

Depends on how many people are in on the scheme and how well trained they are to tell a common lie. To do this, there needs to be a central control to disseminate the lies to have some form of consistency; errors will creep in as well as total exaggerations and falsehoods. I think this is what is being observed here.

[Nessie]

Corroboration on the other hand is a reliable and credible method of assessing truthfulness because it is independent of the witness and it is not affected by how the witness provides testimony.

Depends on how many people are in on the scheme and how well trained they are to tell a common lie. To do this, there needs to be a central control to disseminate the lies to have some form of consistency; errors will creep in as well as total exaggerations and falsehoods. I think this is what is being observed here.

The idea of a centrally controlled conspiracy that manipulated millions to lie is a wack-job, nutter conspiracy theorist. It had to be millions, because you claim millions were not gassed, so they are all in on the lie and stood by saying nothing about what supposedly did happen.