You are the defence for the Nazis in court, what do you do?

Nessie wrote:

There are cremation experts.  

That this person STILL hasn’t understood what the word ‘pyre’ means — even after you have explained it to him numerous times — demonstrates that he is not capable of discussion because he can not understand simple word definitions.

1. He can not understand nor can be made to understand simple word meanings.
2. He is not capable of reasonable, intelligent, logical discussion about his ‘holocaust’ belief. 
3. For him — and many like him — he approaches the subject as a true and faithful believer in something.
4. He starts discussion believing ‘it definitely happened’ without understanding what about ‘it’ (the holocaust) is actually being questioned.
5. Discussion about cremation or court procedure, or whatever, is not engaged in to discover ‘what actually happened’, but to buttress his irrational belief.

.....

It is difficult to not appear to be making it ‘personal’ when issues are ignored, avoided or misunderstood. Because then to make sense of the discussion requires demolishing an individual’s personal argument and argument style/tactics.

If it is not difficult, why has no evidence been presented, to prove the German trials accused were coerced or lied for their own reasons? A Judge would warn you not to make unfounded accusations, and your Nazi clients would likely sack you for calling them liars in court.



Would you call your own client a liar, during that trial? That would mean you are accusing your client of perjury and you could cause them to be convicted of that crime.



First, produce the evidence they were.



Mengele was never put on trial.



The Judge will explain the difference between proof and evidence to you and that archaeologists who go through their reports on their examinations at the AR camp sites and how they found buried cremated remains, is archaeological evidence. That evidence, along with the witness evidence, documentary evidence and the confessions of your clients is why he is convicting them.

If you have evidence of coercion, you can put it to the court.
If you do not have evidence and your client has made no claim of being coerced, and you announce in court there has been coercion, then it is you who would be dismissed, by the court and probably also the legal profession.



You are making assumptions, in court you need evidence. You have assumed that the pyres would not work. The Judge would explain to you that the court does not need to know how the pyres would, work, just that they worked. When the prosecution has presented multiple witness to pyres and archaeologists who have found physical evidence to corroborate the witnesses, unless you can produce evidence, then you will be told to sit down and shut up.

Judges recognise logical fallacies, unlike you and a Judge will not take kindly to you arguing logical fallacies.



Mengele did not deny gassings took place inside the Kremas. He did not provide any evidence as to what did happen instead. The same applies to every single Nazi, whether they were part of legal proceedings or not.




The archaeologist giving evidence will agree with you that the archaeological evidence alone does not prove the gassing, mass graves and cremation claims. The Judge will wonder what law school, you went to!

The evidence from the archaeologists will prove that there are large areas of disturbed ground containing buried cremated remains and personal possessions, many of which were Jewish in origin and that there are the remains of demolished buildings where the witness said gas chambers were located.



Every jury would convict an accused of murder, when

- the accused admits to the murder
- there are multiple witnesses to the murder
- where there is physical, circumstantial and documentary evidence corroborating the witnesses
- where the defence cannot produce any evidence of coercion or any alternative to alibi the accused.