Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210 
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 27, 2023 18:54:26 GMT
I suspect been-there will need more help to get his head around what I have explained to him, so, he likes an image and maybe this will help. The important words are "check" underlined in blue and "discredit" underlined in orange.  At the Nazi trials, where the Nazis had admitted to mass gassings, the cross-examination was to "check" the witness's testimony. That is because the Nazi had admitted to the crime, which was corroborated by the witnesses and other evidence, such as documents and site examinations. The crime is not in dispute. At the Zundel trial, where Zundel was alleging no mass gassings and Vrba was lying, the cross-examination is to "discredit" the witness's testimony, because the crime in question is in dispute. It is also important to note been-there underlined only "credibility" and not "testimony" or "knowledge". Someone can be lying through their teeth and be credible. The courts main job is to establish truthfulness. That difference is important and missed to all revisionists. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 28, 2023 11:24:43 GMT
Would a historical narrative that had copious amounts of irrefutable, overwhelming ’evidence’ supporting it, need to be defended with such ludicrously illogical argument tactics, like those we are currently being subjected to?
LESSONS IN LOGIC that are still being dodged
LESSONS IN LOGIC — Point 1Quibbling about whether court-room CROSS-EXAMINATION is ’critical’ or ’genuine’ was stupid denial of what the term ’cross-examination’ literally means. As the dictionary definition proved. It is logical to conclude that only someone with no genuine argument would attempt such a stupid and ignorant semantic quibble. Because both logically and OBVIOUSLY, if a court room examination of a witness isn’t critical then it isn’t genuine cross-examination. LESSONS IN LOGIC — Point 2 that is still being dodgedIf someone disputed the Zündel trial being the first time there had been genuine cross-examination of a jewish, holocaust-survivor eye-witness to mass-gassing, they would produce evidence of an earlier trial or trials as an example of where and when that had occurred previously to prove their point. Nessie still hasn’t even attempted that. So not only can we logically conclude there was no previous occassion. But we can also logically conclude that only someone not genuinely interested in truth but only wishing to contradict from ignorance would use such stupid and illogical tactic as this reversing of the burden of proof. (N.b. Nessie made the exact same idiotic response to discussion of the Höfle telegram. So still hasn’t learnt.)LESSONS IN LOGIC — Point 3The logical corrollary of Nessie’s stubborn denial to admit that positing a 1986 trial as if it preceded a 1985 trial was an error, is that this person is not capable of discussing ANY point of this bogus H history intelligently and fairly! LESSONS IN LOGIC — Point 4 that is still being dodged someone would only need to resort to the logical fallacy of strawman misrepresentation IF they know that their own argument is weak or wrong. LESSONS IN LOGIC — Point 5 IF — as many suspect — the Holocaust mass-gassing allegation was indeed a hoax, it definitely would have been exposed earlier (and perhaps never taken off at all) had witnesses been subjected to genuine cross-examination. It obviously makes no difference to this point whether the accused made self-incriminating confessions or not. Obviously it makes logical sense that had the Jewish accusatory testimony been subjected to cross-examination, it would have become clear that the ’confessions’ were false and possibly coerced. Plus, regarding ’confessions’ there is the logical comparison that has been made regarding Salem witch trials. LESSONS IN LOGIC — Point 6 that is still being dodgedOnly a person who knows they have no legitimate argument would resort to redefining a word’s definition, to avoid conceding error. As that is what Nessie is also doing here with the term cross-examination, I suggest the only logical conclusion is that this person has no genuine argument and so is desperately resorting to transparent deception. |
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 28, 2023 12:22:58 GMT
Would a historical narrative that had copious amounts of irrefutable, overwhelming ’evidence’ supporting it, need to be defended with such ludicrously illogical argument tactics, like those we are currently being subjected to?
LESSONS IN LOGIC that are still being dodged
LESSONS IN LOGIC — Point 1Quibbling about whether court-room CROSS-EXAMINATION is ’critical’ or ’genuine’ was stupid denial of what the term ’cross-examination’ literally means. As the dictionary definition proved. It is logical to conclude that only someone with no genuine argument would attempt such a stupid and ignorant semantic quibble. Because both logically and OBVIOUSLY, if a court room examination of a witness isn’t critical then it isn’t genuine cross-examination. You are playing semantics to back up your suggestion that prior to the cross-examination of Vrba, there had never been a genuine, critical cross-examination of a Jewish witness. You are dodging that the defence will not critically cross-examine a witness to a crime, about the crime, when the accused admits to that crime. I asked you to evidence your claim and you are now playing semantics to try and reverse the burden of proof. You link to me asking you to evidence a claim about the Hofle telegram, where you then claim that because I have asked you to provide evidence, I am doubting the claim and I must produce the evidence to refute you. If you think your argument is logical, then every time you ask me for evidence, I can also respond by claiming your request is due to your doubting of my claim and it is now up to you to provide evidence to refute my claim. I did not claim the Demjanjuk trial came before the Vrba one. I asked you to evidence Vrba was the first critical cross-examination and gave you an example of another critical cross-examination, without claiming it was earlier. You just mistakenly assumed that. I was wanting to check to see what you understood about cross-examinations, which is obviously not much. I agree with that, so no dodging from me. Strawmen arguments are used when the arguer has a weak or wrong argument. Is there a context to this, you have in mind? It very much affects cross-examination when the accused has confessed to a crime. A defence cannot cross-examine a witness and allege they are lying about a crime the accused has admitted to. No defence will stand up in court and accuse a witness of lying that their client committed a crime, their client has admitted to. If the defence is going to allege the confession is false and coerced, then the accused has to have claimed their confession was false and coerced. No Nazi did that. There is no evidence of false confessions and coercion at the death camps trials. Such an accusation by the defence is very serious and it has to be evidenced before it can be made in court. The defence in the Nazi trials, was mitigation, excuses for their client's actions, about identification and responsibility, not that the crime alleged had not taken place. That is why no Jewish witness was accused of lying about gassings under cross-examination. Only an ignoramus, whose ego prevents himself from accepting mistakes, would continue to claim otherwise. I used the definition you posted and pointed to mistakes you have made, regarding "check", "discredit" and "credible", which you are dodging. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 28, 2023 13:07:40 GMT
...Where any narrative relies ALMOST TOTALLY on testimony, the documentary and forensic evidence decides what is true and what is false testimony. This applies both to legal cases AND to contested historical narratives.
And in both cases, the testimonial evidence alone does not decide, but HOW IT IS INTERPRETED and CONTEXTUALISED does. Which is precisely why in a court of law there is a trial where both defence and prosecutor legal teams can analyse and use that same evidence to make their case. Plenty of Jewish eyewitnesses to gassings had given evidence in past trials. Vrba, who was used at the Zundel trial also gave evidence in the 1964 Frankfurt "Auschwitz" trial. "Holocaust experts" were not used in those criminal trials, as primary evidence was available. Historians were used at the Zundel trial to give evidence as to what the history was being denied. Just a reminder of the level of intelligence and honesty that Nessie is bringing to this discussion regarding ’cross-examination’ of people claiming to be mass-gassing witnesses. 1. As can be seen from the sentence in bold, initially Nessie didn’t even understand the word ’cross-examination’ and instead equated it with ”appearing for the prosecution”. An extremely bizarre non-comprehension. 2. She did also argue a 1986 trial preceded a 1985 trial. 3. It IS a point of logic to assume that there were absolutely no holocaust’-related trials where jewish ’survivors’ who claimed to be eye-witnesses to mass-gassings were ever subjected to genuine cross-examination. As if this were not the case Nessie could have referenced one. She hasn’t because she knows she can’t. LOGICAL CONCLUSION: The 1985 Zündel trial was the FIRST time that had occurred. Doug Christie was the FIRST lawyer to subject jews who claimed to be mass-gassing eye-witnesses to genuine ’CROSS-EXAMINATION’. So the over-arching point still remains, is it logical to expect such a person to be able to analyse honestly, fairly and intelligently more complex matters of history from eighty years ago? |
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 28, 2023 17:07:42 GMT
....Likewise in the Zündel trials in Canada in the 1980s, the ‘holocaust expert’ and ‘eye-witness’ testimony of those Jews who were appearing for the prosecution were demolished in court. This was because NEVER BEFORE had such people been cross-examined. You have claimed no cross-examinations. Those are your words. I took that to be yet another one of your idiotic false claims, so I replied that of course Jews, appearing for the prosecution will have been cross-examined; Nessie replied: You are wrong that the Zundel trial was the first where such people as Jews appeard for the prosecution. Plenty of Jewish eyewitnesses to gassings had given evidence in past trials. Vrba, who was used at the Zundel trial also gave evidence in the 1964 Frankfurt "Auschwitz" trial. "Holocaust experts" were not used in those criminal trials, as primary evidence was available. Historians were used at the Zundel trial to give evidence as to what the history was being denied. You now move the goalposts; You originally did not use the word critical. You now try to point score and wriggle out of what you actually said, rather than accept your original wording was poor. Yet again, you show how little you know about trials. When someone appears for the prosecution and the defence asks questions, that is cross-examination. How do you not know that? When you say ignorant things like that, it is hardly surprising that I correct you when you claim no Jewish witness had been cross-examined, when everyone who knows anything about the trials, the Jewish witnesses, appearing for the prosecution, were asked questions by the Nazi defence lawyers. You are clearly lying, as you have failed to link to and quote me saying that, whereas you found quotes for your argument above, and you have gone back to being a bully and using the wrong pronoun. What you are arguing should have happened, cannot. I have explained why that is to you. When an accused admits to the crime they are being accused of, the defence cannot allege the witness is lying about that crime. You make daft claims and have to correct yourself when your daft claim is called out. Rather than accept your initial claim was at least badly worded, you bully and belittle, which speaks to the type of person you are. Your claim is that Christie was the first lawyer who was afforded the opportunity to suggest a witness was lying about gassings during a cross-examination. You dodge the issue Christie had was over hearsay evidence, rather than whether gassings actually happened. Christie did not allege Vrba was lying about gassings and no gassings happened. Whether your claim about "genuine" cross-examinations, as in a cross-examination that challenges the witness for lying as they give their evidence, is true or not, has yet to be proved. For all we know, other Jewish witnesses were challenged over details they gave about gassings, or over hearsay during cross-examinations. Your attempt to logic Vrba was the first, is because you cannot evidence he was the first. In your attempt to logic he was the first, you have revealed your ignorance about court procedure and cross-examinations. |
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 28, 2023 18:18:52 GMT
Maybe been-there can quote where Christie "genuinely" and "critically" cross-examines Vrba. Here is a link to the cross-examination. aaargh.vho.org/engl/vrba3.html |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 28, 2023 19:13:31 GMT
Maybe been-there can quote where Christie "genuinely" and "critically" cross-examines Vrba. Here is a link to the cross-examination. aaargh.vho.org/engl/vrba3.htmlI already replied to this. You are again showing you aren’t here to discuss history fairly and honestly. You are revealing you are only here to troll and disrupt. |
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Jun 29, 2023 9:21:51 GMT
Maybe been-there can quote where Christie "genuinely" and "critically" cross-examines Vrba. Here is a link to the cross-examination. aaargh.vho.org/engl/vrba3.htmlI already replied to this. You are again showing you aren’t here to discuss history fairly and honestly. You are revealing you are only here to troll and disrupt. Bear in mind, been-there has been arguing Christie's cross-examination is genuine and critical. The question by Christie;
"Q. And you are telling this Court you actually saw Heinrich Himmler peeping through the doors of the gas chamber; you told us that?
A. No, I didn't say I was present when he was peeping through the gas chamber, but I have put together a story which I've heard many times from various people who were there present and who related it to me. What I could see was the following, that a transport of eight thousand Jews from Krakow on that occasion"
Christie is establishing if Vrba saw what he is referring to or not and Vrba states he did not see it. Christie has established it is hearsay. He does not go on to call Vrba a liar by claiming Himmler peeped through a gas chamber door, or to challenge that happened in any way. Instead his next question is;
"Q. Eight thousand, eh? You counted them?"
Christie goes back to the Himmler claim;
"Q. Well, do you tell us that you are standing between Heinrich Himmler and Hoess and hearing their conversation and looking with them or somewhere in the area where they were looking onto a gas chamber? Is that what you are telling me?
A. No. I am telling you that they were looking into the gas chamber, that there were a number of Sonderkommando present, that there were a number of S.S. present.
Q. Were you present?
A. No. I was in the quarantine camp at that time and I spoke with a number of them and listened to them, and I knew that those unfortunate victims were being gassed with a great delay because the VIPs didn't come, so they were being kept in the gas chamber.
Q. Well, in your book you indicate that you saw, and you don't indicate that you heard from other people the story that you related.
A. In this particular case the story is related.
Q. And you say that these things happened as you described, even though you acknowledged they were on the basis of hearsay; right?
A. Yes."
Christie has not challenged Vrba over the truth of the claim about Himmler, or disputed it, or called Vrba out for lying about it, he only wanted to establish if it was hearsay or not.
The one time Christie challenges Vrba over lying is here, where he asks about the Nazis;
"Q. And you hate them enough to lie about them?
A. I beg your pardon?
Q. Do you hate them enough to lie about them?
A. I have sworn on oath that here I will say the truth, and you will make an innuendo that I have lied in anything, then you would have to support it with some evidence, otherwise I would think badly about it.
Q. Well, I suggest to you that in your previous evidence you gave us to believe and told us as a fact that when the S.S. man climbed up on the long bunker, he had to reach up six and a half to seven feet. I put it to you that that is exactly what you said, sir, isn't it?
A. Is it?
Q. I put it to you, and you are the witness, and you have the memory and you testified, I put it to you that's what you said."
Vrba is correct, if the defence allege a witness is lying, they need evidence. Christie goes on, again, to establish if Vrba saw what he is talking about.
Been-there accepts that is genuine and critical cross-examination. No wonder he does not want to discuss the cross-examination in any detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jun 30, 2023 11:03:58 GMT
Here is a lesson in logic that Gibson recently gave Nessie: The discussion ended with this comment from Gibson to Nessie’s reply: ” Total distortion of what I have said. Shape up, unless you want me to put you on ignore.”
CONCLUSION: The problem seems to me to be that it is neither logical (nor credible) to repeatedly claim to have a belief that is claimed to be absolute, inviolabe truth because it is evidence-based but either to: • never provide any evidence at all, • or provide irrelevant ’ evidence’ instead of that been asked to provide or need to provide, • or provide evidence that actually proves your own argument to be wrong. But that is what Nessie is repeatedly AND illogically doing. These three occur all the time here at RODOH. E.g. The last one recently happened on the discussion of alleged holocaust deaths and the contradictory World Almanac figures. |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jul 16, 2023 19:11:24 GMT
Nessie is now spamming her unintellgent nonsense over at CODOH. So much so, that her idiotic and repetitive ramblings of the exact same refuted points have now been confined to one topic-thread to stop her disrupting every topic. It is called Nessie's tar pit (containment zone)
Here is a recent lesson in logic that she received from Archie, two days ago there:
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Jul 21, 2023 13:44:31 GMT
Here is Gibson trying to give a lesson in logic to someone who is hopelessly handicapped with a ’believer’ mentality.
The handicapped person starts from the position ’the holocaust happened exactly as it says on the tin’ and then proceeds to respond to all attempts at reason through this filter. With this ’believer’ handicap, if reason, logic or facts confirm the a priori belief system then the filter-mechanism permits it. If reason, logic or facts undermine or refute the belief-system then they are rejected by the filtering mechanism.
Gibson is trying to explain that just as i.) evidence someone went fishing does not ”converge” with and corroborate a story they caught a humongous fish, similarly ii.) evidence of building crematoria, transports of people, or ordering tins of pesticide gas, does not ”converge” with and corroborate a story of many millions mass-murdered.
Nck Terry seems to me to be like a child who believed his Dad’s story that he once caught a gigantic fish the size of a dolphin in the nearbye pond and then let it go without photographing it, and is miffed that other boys at school don’t believe it.
|
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Aug 5, 2023 19:52:55 GMT
As I predicted that Nessie would delete a post to which she has no credible, logical answer to, I made a copy and screengrab of it. [See below] The post Nessie deleted concerns her lack of logical argument and her mirroring of arguments that defeat hers. I replace it here for posterity, so that anyone can read that which she censored and her personal history that she would rather people did not know:  |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Aug 26, 2023 13:08:22 GMT
Nessie replied: You are wrong that the Zundel trial was the first where such people as Jews appeard for the prosecution. Plenty of Jewish eyewitnesses to gassings had given evidence in past trials. Vrba, who was used at the Zundel trial also gave evidence in the 1964 Frankfurt "Auschwitz" trial. "Holocaust experts" were not used in those criminal trials, as primary evidence was available. Historians were used at the Zundel trial to give evidence as to what the history was being denied. Just a reminder of the level of intelligence and honesty that Nessie is bringing to this discussion regarding ’cross-examination’ of people claiming to be mass-gassing witnesses. 1. As can be seen from the sentence in bold, initially Nessie didn’t even understand the word ’cross-examination’ and instead equated it with ”appearing for the prosecution”. An extremely bizarre non-comprehension. 2. She did also argue a 1986 trial preceded a 1985 trial. 3. It IS a point of logic to assume that there were absolutely no holocaust’-related trials where jewish ’survivors’ who claimed to be eye-witnesses to mass-gassings were ever subjected to genuine cross-examination. As if this were not the case Nessie could have referenced one. She hasn’t because she knows she can’t. LOGICAL CONCLUSION: The 1985 Zündel trial was the FIRST time that had occurred. Doug Christie was the FIRST lawyer to subject jews who claimed to be mass-gassing eye-witnesses to genuine ’CROSS-EXAMINATION’. So the over-arching point still remains, is it logical to expect such a person to be able to analyse honestly, fairly and intelligently more complex matters of history from eighty years ago? Here is another, relevant point of simple logic. In the Demjanjuk trial, that took place in the apartheid Jewish State of Israel in 1986, all five of the Jewish ‘holocaust survivor’ eye-witnesses (lie-witnesses) proved to be revenge-motivated liars guilty of perjury. This demonstrated the shamelessness of such ‘survivors’ that they conspiratorially corroborated each others lies against a man innocent of the crime they collectively accused him of. The logical corollary of this FACT would be anyone interested in historical truth to therefore have some modicum of healthy skepticism of the credibility of ALL such ‘holocaust eye-witness’ trial witnesses. This LOGICAL CONCLUSION is further confirmed by the FACT that to my knowledge, since the news-covered, 1985, persecutory trial of a.) Zündel in Canada and b.) those 1986 to 1988 trials of Demjanjuk in Israel, no more 'gas-chamber, death-camp eyewitnesses' have EVER dared to appear in another court, in another ‘holocaust’ related trial. If I am wrong, I welcome correction. CONCLUSION: once lawyers and ‘eyewitness survivors’ understood that such testimony would be analysed and subjected to cross-examination, they no longer dared to appear in court. The Irving vs Lipstadt/Penguin Books case in January to March 2001 is an example of that. |
|
Nessie
✍️
𝐕𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐬 𝗮𝗱𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿
Posts: 5,210
|
Post by Nessie on Aug 27, 2023 11:34:07 GMT
......Here is another, relevant point of simple logic. In the Demjanjuk trial, that took place in the apartheid Jewish State of Israel in 1986, all five of the Jewish ‘holocaust survivor’ eye-witnesses (lie-witnesses) proved to be revenge-motivated liars guilty of perjury. This demonstrated the shamelessness of such ‘survivors’ that they conspiratorially corroborated each others lies against a man innocent of the crime they collectively accused him of. The logical corollary of this FACT would be anyone interested in historical truth to therefore have some modicum of healthy skepticism of the credibility of ALL such ‘holocaust eye-witness’ trial witnesses. The reliability of the identification evidence was challenged by the defence and the witness identification found to be unreliable. There was a healthy dose of scepticism in the court that day, as it was accepted that the witnesses could not reliably identify the accused. The 2015 trial of Oskar Groening; www.auschwitz.info/en/essentials/essential-texts/groening-trial-final-speech-of-the-defence.html"Eva Pusztai and 13 additional joint plaintiffs have given statements during this trial. In the witness stand they have described all of the things which, in the words of the defendant, represented the processing of transport trains from Hungary that took place in a calm atmosphere....Irene Weiss was the last of these witnesses to speak. In this courtroom we heard the voice of the then 13-year-old Jewish child telling about her arrival in Auschwitz in May 1944..." The 2016 trial of Reinhold Hanning; www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/17/auschwitz-guard-reinhold-hanning-jailed-holocaust-auschwitz"Scores of Holocaust survivors and historians gave testimony to the court, but Hanning – who became a junior squadron leader with the SS – avoided their gaze....Leon Schwarzbaum, another survivor from Berlin, said he would have liked Hanning to use the trial as an opportunity to speak more about what happened at the camp so that future generations would know. “It is a just verdict, but he should say more, tell the truth for the young people,” Schwarzbaum, 95, told the AP. “He is an old man and probably won’t have to go to jail, but he should say what happened at Auschwitz. Auschwitz was like something the world has never seen.”" |
|
|
|
Post by been_there on Aug 30, 2023 15:54:38 GMT
......Here is another, relevant point of simple logic. In the Demjanjuk trial, that took place in the apartheid Jewish State of Israel in 1986, all five of the Jewish ‘holocaust survivor’ eye-witnesses (lie-witnesses) proved to be revenge-motivated liars guilty of perjury. This demonstrated the shamelessness of such ‘survivors’ that they conspiratorially corroborated each others lies against a man innocent of the crime they collectively accused him of. The logical corollary of this FACT would be anyone interested in historical truth to therefore have some modicum of healthy skepticism of the credibility of ALL such ‘holocaust eye-witness’ trial witnesses. The reliability of the identification evidence was challenged by the defence and the witness identification found to be unreliable. There was a healthy dose of scepticism in the court that day, as it was accepted that the witnesses could not reliably identify the accused. The 2015 trial of Oskar Groening; www.auschwitz.info/en/essentials/essential-texts/groening-trial-final-speech-of-the-defence.html"Eva Pusztai and 13 additional joint plaintiffs have given statements during this trial. In the witness stand they have described all of the things which, in the words of the defendant, represented the processing of transport trains from Hungary that took place in a calm atmosphere....Irene Weiss was the last of these witnesses to speak... The 2016 trial of Reinhold Hanning; www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/17/auschwitz-guard-reinhold-hanning-jailed-holocaust-auschwitz"Scores of Holocaust survivors and historians gave testimony to the court... Leon Schwarzbaum, another survivor from Berlin, said he would have liked Hanning to use the trial as an opportunity to speak more about what happened at the camp so that future generations would know. “It is a just verdict, but he should say more, tell the truth for the young people. He is an old man and probably won’t have to go to jail, but he should say what happened at Auschwitz. Auschwitz was like something the world has never seen.”" To give Nessie (LCS) her due, this is actually almost accurate and I nearly stand corrected. These show-trials in Germany after the Demjanjuk trials did have holyhoax witnesses STILL appearing without fear of being exposed as liars or shameless exaggerators. But there are are two things that must be understood here: 1.) none of these witnesses claimed to be 'gas-chamber, death-camp eyewitnesses', which was the specification given. 2. Germany is a completely unique jurisiction, and thus Nessie (renamed as LCS) is ’ almost’ correct, in that holyhoax lie-witness DO still dare to appear in court and vent their appeal-to-our-emotions spiel of ”unique and special, jooish WW2 suffering”. I.e it is correct to say that these people do appear there and are not afraid of being exposed as liars. But isn’t that because in Germany they know they STILL will NOT BE challenged? Isn’t this because Germany is STILL a country under occupation by the Allied victors, who still have American and British military bases there, with foreign soldiers encamped there, and because Germany still has to follow post-war rules and regulations installed by the victors who feared a NSDP resurgence? Consequently any lawyer in a German court who attempts to do their job and cross-examine a holy H eye-witness, or to analyse and ’question’ the ’history’(?) upon which the charges being made against the accused, will be commiting career suicide and will open themselves up to be in the dock with their client. Sylvia Stolz is an example of exactly this. She was even sent to prison for contesting the lies on which her client’s charges were based. A shameful proof of the travesty of justice that is enforced in the occupied state of Germany. I find it also ironic that Nessie (alias LCS) quoted a ’survivor’ expecting Rheihold Sanning to ”say more, tell the truth for the young people. He is an old man and probably won’t have to go to jail, but he should say what happened at Auschwitz.” As this is tacit admission that i.) Hanning would not have been permitted to challenge the basis of the charges being made against him as they were ILLOGICALLY regarded as sacrosanct, inviolable truth, ii.) there has never been any credible testimony before, as there was so much coercion and lies given in court by accused perpetrators given to continue to live and receive more lenient sentences. And although I referred to defence lawyers in Israel suddenly daring to do their job and conduct a genuine defence of an accused ’holycaust’ perpetrator, that may have changed now as the defence lawyer in the Demjanjuk case Sheftl said “I was the most hated man in the country, more than my client”. PLUS, after his succesful defence, he had acid thrown in his fact and was temporarily blinded. A sure deterrent to anyone daring to follow his example. |
|
