Post by been_there on May 9, 2022 10:34:18 GMT
I have created this new topic thread as the methodology for judging truthfulness and credibility is more of a philosophical endeavour than a historical one.
And I regard it as an endeavour that naturally will be an extremely important principle to understand, when guaging the accuracy and worthiness of โwitnessโ testimonies of any subject.
As the currently compulsory historical narrative known as โthe holocaustโ relies extremely heavily on โeye-witnessโ testimony for its appeal to be accepted as a credible historical narrative, it seemed to me necessary to explore what are the distinctions deciding what are credible and non-credible testimonies and witnesses.
As the holocaust narrative is increasingly legally protected from critical evaluation, an investigation of how to define credibility in witness statements will need to be from both a legal and an epistemological perspective.
First, here are two legal definitions.
The first explains how a judge and jury are expected to decide what IS a credible witness.
The second explains how a judge and jury are expected to decide what IS NOT a credible witness.
How do these distinctions apply to witness statements of โvictimsโ and โperpetratorsโ of an alleged crime?
A โvictimโ as a prosecution witness or plaintiff will obviously be prone to bias, so that must be considered when guaging credibility. Yet in the holocaust allegation of mass-gassing genocide, that appears to NEVER be considered, or if it is, not mentioned out of โsympathyโ.
A โperpetratorโ witness making a confession of guilt from a defendant needs to be supported by forensic evidence. False confessions where a defendant dishonestly โrelates the affair as they know it, with a purpose to deceive, or suppress or add to the truthโ due to coercion or promise of a reduced sentence, are common.
If we take ANY eye witness testimony from holocaust victims or perpetrators, how do they pass the above criteria?
And if a study were done, would that be accepted as valid academic research?
Or would it be condemned as โantisemiticโ form of โholocaust denialโ?
And I regard it as an endeavour that naturally will be an extremely important principle to understand, when guaging the accuracy and worthiness of โwitnessโ testimonies of any subject.
As the currently compulsory historical narrative known as โthe holocaustโ relies extremely heavily on โeye-witnessโ testimony for its appeal to be accepted as a credible historical narrative, it seemed to me necessary to explore what are the distinctions deciding what are credible and non-credible testimonies and witnesses.
As the holocaust narrative is increasingly legally protected from critical evaluation, an investigation of how to define credibility in witness statements will need to be from both a legal and an epistemological perspective.
First, here are two legal definitions.
The first explains how a judge and jury are expected to decide what IS a credible witness.
DECIDING WITNESS CREDIBILITY.
A credible witness is one who is competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief.
~ 5 Mass. 219 17 Pick. 134; 2 Curt. Ecc. R. 336.
In deciding upon the credibility of a witness, it is always pertinent to consider:
1. whether they are capable of knowing the thing thoroughly about which they testify;
2. whether they were actually present at the occurrence;
3. whether they paid sufficient attention to qualify themselves to be a reporter of it;
4. whether they honestly relate the affair fully as they know it, without any purpose or desire to deceive, or suppress or add to the truth.
A credible witness is one who is competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief.
~ 5 Mass. 219 17 Pick. 134; 2 Curt. Ecc. R. 336.
In deciding upon the credibility of a witness, it is always pertinent to consider:
1. whether they are capable of knowing the thing thoroughly about which they testify;
2. whether they were actually present at the occurrence;
3. whether they paid sufficient attention to qualify themselves to be a reporter of it;
4. whether they honestly relate the affair fully as they know it, without any purpose or desire to deceive, or suppress or add to the truth.
Credible witnesses
A credible witness is a witness who comes across as competent and worthy of belief.
Their testimony is assumed to be more than likely true due to their experience, knowledge, training, and sense of honesty.
The judge and jurors will use these factors to determine whether they believe the witness is credible.
An attorney can show jurors a witness is not credible by showing:
1) inconsistent statements,
2) reputation for untruthfulness,
3) defects in perception,
4) prior convictions that show dishonesty or untruthfulness,
5) bias.
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/credible_witness
A credible witness is a witness who comes across as competent and worthy of belief.
Their testimony is assumed to be more than likely true due to their experience, knowledge, training, and sense of honesty.
The judge and jurors will use these factors to determine whether they believe the witness is credible.
An attorney can show jurors a witness is not credible by showing:
1) inconsistent statements,
2) reputation for untruthfulness,
3) defects in perception,
4) prior convictions that show dishonesty or untruthfulness,
5) bias.
www.law.cornell.edu/wex/credible_witness
A โvictimโ as a prosecution witness or plaintiff will obviously be prone to bias, so that must be considered when guaging credibility. Yet in the holocaust allegation of mass-gassing genocide, that appears to NEVER be considered, or if it is, not mentioned out of โsympathyโ.
A โperpetratorโ witness making a confession of guilt from a defendant needs to be supported by forensic evidence. False confessions where a defendant dishonestly โrelates the affair as they know it, with a purpose to deceive, or suppress or add to the truthโ due to coercion or promise of a reduced sentence, are common.
If we take ANY eye witness testimony from holocaust victims or perpetrators, how do they pass the above criteria?
And if a study were done, would that be accepted as valid academic research?
Or would it be condemned as โantisemiticโ form of โholocaust denialโ?
