Gibson
โ๏ธ
Patrician
Posts: 258
|
Post by Gibson on Feb 5, 2023 15:42:31 GMT
It is quite straightforward to distinguish the hearsay in testimony. You saw an example in court with Biskowitz. Much of the testimony used by historians is from self statements and in that, such as Wiernik, it is also simple to reliably determine what is hearsay and what is eyewitness. Why do deniers mix the two and not give authority to eyewitness evidence? Yes, Biskowitz was mildly cross-examined because he came up with a story that even the Israeli court was embarrassed about - and his claims fell apart. Until cross-examination, he left it understood that he was a witness to these things.You're the one who speculates on eyewitness evidence. It would have been desirable for all claims to have have been cross-examined competently, to see just how much Biskowitz-style backtracking would occur. Your side made sure that wasn't the case so you can continue to speculate. He makes no mention of going inside the building. Gerstein says he saw everything and the context strongly implies he did. You then invent a scenario where he didn't see everything. The other likely cause of Gerstein's mistake is time. He wrote his testimony in May 1945, about events in August 1942. Anyone who knows anything about memory knows about the cause of likely errors. The 1943 version uses a tractor outside the building, but you'll no doubt complain about hearsay. Yeah, memory is the cause of likely errors which is why late-game story revisions are less impressive.
You have dodged answering. What do you mean by "the actual source of the information is uncertain"? The source of the information is Nazis who worked at the AR camps. That makes them a known and important source of eyewitness evidence. How do you decide between "both sides"? What is the most reliable method for determining which side is more accurate? What is the flaw in your claim about "both sides", in the Nazi trials? The source of the German statements is German authorities on cleanup duty who like to put words in people's mouths. If the witnesses were at least cross-examined on these matters by an opposition and we knew the result, that would be something to show for it.
Ideally, there's two sides with peer resources arguing theirs and extensive cross-examination of witnesses, creating a copious record to examine. Then you can just examine it, sort of the way juries or judges do. That was demonstrated emphatically with Vrba. It is much harder to answer unforeseen questions consistently than it is to tell a "consistent" stand-alone story. And that is where false or derivative testimonies will really start to diverge. The extent to which the testimonies already diverge even without rigorous questioning is remarkable. Another point about this "hearsay" excuse. We should ask ourselves why hearsay is unreliable. Oftentimes it isn't. It's actually very common to rely on secondhand information. For instance, if you hear that a family member or friend has died, you often hear this secondhand or thirdhand as the news spreads. The information is usually true. Only rarely would something like that be a false rumor. How do false rumors arise? (Setting aside the possibility of deliberate misinformation for a moment...) Typically there would need to be some major misunderstanding and/or something speculative (or facetious or hypothetical or ...) might transform into something more certain and authoritative. Often there would need to be many layers of transmission in order for this to happen and often the message would need to be on points where the probability of misunderstanding was sufficiently high. Now then. In these camps, there were prisoners working there, including directly with the extermination process. Many of the camps had embedded underground sources. Jan Karski's account says they had bribed guards for information and were attempting to infiltrate the camp which would be yet another source of intelligence. Surveillance was also very possible. Moreover, many of the events in question would be utterly impossible to conceal (thousands herded into a building and dead bodies pulled out, enormous mass graves, enormous pyres, etc.) How then could someone who was in the camp and who spoke with others in the camp possibly come away with, for example, the impression that the gas chamber had a collapsible floor and claim to have seen a large number of bodies underneath the gas chamber building? "Hearsay!" does not explain that. These are made up stories. Nor should we be impressed with a limited degree of eventual convergence in the stories since this could just as easily suggest these stories are derivative.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,750
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 5, 2023 19:10:37 GMT
Deniers always want to avoid discussing the process of what happened inside the AR camps, especially what happened to the people once they had had all their possessions, clothing and hair taken from them. That is evidence of what else was happening and it logically fits with gassings, not resettlement. It's not a very impressive argument. The Germans are accused of the same type of dispossession when deporting Poles and Jews to the GG before Operation Barbarossa or taking inmates in camps. The circumstantial evidence of AR, fits logically with the gassing claims and not the denier resettlement claims. Shaving heads and removing all clothing fits with delousing. But there is no evidence of any property being returned to those at the AR camps, or even the issuing of uniforms. If people were being resettled, then they would be left with the suitcase of property they were allowed, or else the Nazis would have to go to the expense of finding things like basic utensils for them. You describe that argument as "unimpressive" because you have nothing to counter it with. Hearsay is not "out of court statements not subject to cross examination". There is something you are missing, when it comes to cross-examination. I gave you a clue above. What would a lawyer who is cross-examining a witness, present the witness with? You said "both sides", but in this case, both sides agree. The Jewish witnesses and Nazi accused agree the AR camps were used for mass gassings. In every court in the world, if an accused agrees with a witness, that is regarded as compelling, corroborating evidence.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,750
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 5, 2023 19:19:32 GMT
.....That was demonstrated emphatically with Vrba. It is much harder to answer unforeseen questions consistently than it is to tell a "consistent" stand-alone story. And that is where false or derivative testimonies will really start to diverge. The extent to which the testimonies already diverge even without rigorous questioning is remarkable. Let's test that claim. Name and quote two eyewitnesses who both worked inside the A-B Kremas and show where their testimony "really starts to diverge". In the camps, it is straightforward to identify what is hearsay and what is not. If a prisoner or Nazi worked inside the A-B Kremas, or the AR camps at the gas chambers, they are eyewitnesses. If they worked elsewhere in A-B, or they processed property at the AR camps and did not work the gas chambers, it is hearsay. What you dodge is that those who worked inside the Kremas or at the AR camp gas chambers all describe gassings by the same methods. That does not suit your beliefs, so you try to mix in the hearsay. What is the most reliable method for determining those were made up stories? You are back to the ridiculous claim that testimony that agrees and testimony that disagrees is suspect!!!!!! With your argument, there is no such thing as a truthful witness.
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 5, 2023 23:01:31 GMT
It's not a very impressive argument. The Germans are accused of the same type of dispossession when deporting Poles and Jews to the GG before Operation Barbarossa or taking inmates in camps. The circumstantial evidence of AR, fits logically with the gassing claims and not the denier resettlement claims. Shaving heads and removing all clothing fits with delousing. But there is no evidence of any property being returned to those at the AR camps, or even the issuing of uniforms. If people were being resettled, then they would be left with the suitcase of property they were allowed, or else the Nazis would have to go to the expense of finding things like basic utensils for them. You describe that argument as "unimpressive" because you have nothing to counter it with. Arguments from incredulity about utensils are even more unimpressive. Can you find me the utensils for ethnic German deportees from the Volga German ASSR? Hearsay is not "out of court statements not subject to cross examination". Why not? There is something you are missing, when it comes to cross-examination. I gave you a clue above. What would a lawyer who is cross-examining a witness, present the witness with? You said "both sides", but in this case, both sides agree. The Jewish witnesses and Nazi accused agree the AR camps were used for mass gassings. In every court in the world, if an accused agrees with a witness, that is regarded as compelling, corroborating evidence. Bzzzt. Wrong. That a legal strategy was chosen not to dispute the story merely created no adversarial examination of certain matters. Most of the Belzec defendants were acquitted despite West Germany rigging the judges in anticipation of such trials, therefore the legal strategy worked excellently to a point. It's not a flaw in my argument that a critical examination didn't happen; you asked for the most reliable way and I noted it.
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 6, 2023 0:50:58 GMT
That was demonstrated emphatically with Vrba. It is much harder to answer unforeseen questions consistently than it is to tell a "consistent" stand-alone story. And that is where false or derivative testimonies will really start to diverge. The extent to which the testimonies already diverge even without rigorous questioning is remarkable. Another point about this "hearsay" excuse. We should ask ourselves why hearsay is unreliable. Oftentimes it isn't. It's actually very common to rely on secondhand information. For instance, if you hear that a family member or friend has died, you often hear this secondhand or thirdhand as the news spreads. The information is usually true. Only rarely would something like that be a false rumor. How do false rumors arise? (Setting aside the possibility of deliberate misinformation for a moment...) Typically there would need to be some major misunderstanding and/or something speculative (or facetious or hypothetical or ...) might transform into something more certain and authoritative. Often there would need to be many layers of transmission in order for this to happen and often the message would need to be on points where the probability of misunderstanding was sufficiently high. Now then. In these camps, there were prisoners working there, including directly with the extermination process. Many of the camps had embedded underground sources. Jan Karski's account says they had bribed guards for information and were attempting to infiltrate the camp which would be yet another source of intelligence. Surveillance was also very possible. Moreover, many of the events in question would be utterly impossible to conceal (thousands herded into a building and dead bodies pulled out, enormous mass graves, enormous pyres, etc.) How then could someone who was in the camp and who spoke with others in the camp possibly come away with, for example, the impression that the gas chamber had a collapsible floor and claim to have seen a large number of bodies underneath the gas chamber building? "Hearsay!" does not explain that. These are made up stories. Nor should we be impressed with a limited degree of eventual convergence in the stories since this could just as easily suggest these stories are derivative. If you want to check out an extreme example of what happens if you break down the "wall" of unforeseen questions you can try Kurt Gerstein and his examination by a French judge. It's best laid out in Mattogno's book on Gerstein (Handbooks vol. 43). After shattering his credibility by remixing his story again and again, all that remained trustworthy from him were Zyklon B delivery invoices to Auschwitz bearing his name (that he enthusiastically turned over, presumably in hopes of vindicating himself as a Christian resistance hero). He killed himself after his anti-government rebellious streak - that he fell back into since at least 1943 - turned against him. I think my position vis-a-vis Nessie is that I'm investigating folklore, therefore hearsay witnesses are okay in my investigation of folklore and I'll use them as I please, whereas he is establishing crimes and must never use hearsay, which in a legal context is out of court statements. Regarding your point about informants and hearsay, I believe you'll learn on page 65 that even serving German camp staff were beguiled by this terrible disinformation. I guess it's one of those traumatic things that takes a few years to process.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,750
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 6, 2023 19:41:22 GMT
The circumstantial evidence of AR, fits logically with the gassing claims and not the denier resettlement claims. Shaving heads and removing all clothing fits with delousing. But there is no evidence of any property being returned to those at the AR camps, or even the issuing of uniforms. If people were being resettled, then they would be left with the suitcase of property they were allowed, or else the Nazis would have to go to the expense of finding things like basic utensils for them. You describe that argument as "unimpressive" because you have nothing to counter it with. Arguments from incredulity about utensils are even more unimpressive. Can you find me the utensils for ethnic German deportees from the Volga German ASSR? What are you talking about? That is not what hearsay means. Hearsay is a witness repeating what they have been told and not what they saw. uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-205-5143?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true"A written or oral statement made otherwise than by a witness giving their own first-hand evidence in proceedings..." www.defence-barrister.co.uk/hearsay"If you want to prove something to be true in court, the usual rule is that you have to call the person at trial who saw or heard it to give their first-hand account. Where this witness is unavailable, you cannot get round the problem by: Calling a third party to tell the court what the original witness told them about it; or Producing a written witness statement or other document to prove it, even if this is from the original witness and contains their first-hand account of what took place. This type of evidence is known as Hearsay, i.e. evidence intended to prove something as true from a witness who is not in court to give that evidence him or herself." There is something you are missing, when it comes to cross-examination. I gave you a clue above. What would a lawyer who is cross-examining a witness, present the witness with? You failed to answer that question. Why? The Jewish and Nazis agreed, whether that was Belzec, Sobibor, TII or A-B. That is compelling corroborating evidence. The Nazis admitted to mass gassings. They were not stupid enough to deny the undeniable. What is the most reliable way to assess witness truthfulness? Why are you unable to answer that question?
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,750
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 6, 2023 19:57:56 GMT
That was demonstrated emphatically with Vrba. It is much harder to answer unforeseen questions consistently than it is to tell a "consistent" stand-alone story. And that is where false or derivative testimonies will really start to diverge. The extent to which the testimonies already diverge even without rigorous questioning is remarkable. Another point about this "hearsay" excuse. We should ask ourselves why hearsay is unreliable. Oftentimes it isn't. It's actually very common to rely on secondhand information. For instance, if you hear that a family member or friend has died, you often hear this secondhand or thirdhand as the news spreads. The information is usually true. Only rarely would something like that be a false rumor. How do false rumors arise? (Setting aside the possibility of deliberate misinformation for a moment...) Typically there would need to be some major misunderstanding and/or something speculative (or facetious or hypothetical or ...) might transform into something more certain and authoritative. Often there would need to be many layers of transmission in order for this to happen and often the message would need to be on points where the probability of misunderstanding was sufficiently high. Now then. In these camps, there were prisoners working there, including directly with the extermination process. Many of the camps had embedded underground sources. Jan Karski's account says they had bribed guards for information and were attempting to infiltrate the camp which would be yet another source of intelligence. Surveillance was also very possible. Moreover, many of the events in question would be utterly impossible to conceal (thousands herded into a building and dead bodies pulled out, enormous mass graves, enormous pyres, etc.) How then could someone who was in the camp and who spoke with others in the camp possibly come away with, for example, the impression that the gas chamber had a collapsible floor and claim to have seen a large number of bodies underneath the gas chamber building? "Hearsay!" does not explain that. These are made up stories. Nor should we be impressed with a limited degree of eventual convergence in the stories since this could just as easily suggest these stories are derivative. If you want to check out an extreme example of what happens if you break down the "wall" of unforeseen questions you can try Kurt Gerstein and his examination by a French judge. It's best laid out in Mattogno's book on Gerstein (Handbooks vol. 43). After shattering his credibility by remixing his story again and again, all that remained trustworthy from him were Zyklon B delivery invoices to Auschwitz bearing his name (that he enthusiastically turned over, presumably in hopes of vindicating himself as a Christian resistance hero). He killed himself after his anti-government rebellious streak - that he fell back into since at least 1943 - turned against him. You think that cross-examination is how to determine truthfulness, without even knowing what cross -examinations are based on! Eyewitness evidence - testimony from a person who saw the events they are describing. Hearsay - testimony from a witness who is describing what they were told about that event, but did not see themselves. Hearsay is not as reliable as eyewitness evidence, which is why it is normal that witnesses cannot repeat what they were told in a court. Historians use the witnesses who did not see the actual gassings, because they saw other parts of the camp and evidence the process that lead up to the gassings. That circumstantial evidence supports the gassings. You are not investigating folklore, you are investigating a historical event. If you look at the eyewitness evidence only, you see that they agree on pretty much everything and they are also corroborated by the evidence from documents, archaeology, forensics, physical and circumstantial evidence.
|
|
|
Post by ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐๐ด๐ป๐ธ on Feb 6, 2023 21:36:32 GMT
If you look at the eyewitness evidence only, you see that they agree on pretty much everything and they are also corroborated by the evidence from documents, archaeology, forensics, physical and circumstantial evidence. They are not. Corroborated and contrived are different, however, it can be accepted there has been an orchestrated litany of lies. All the documents are chosen for suggestiveness, others discarded. There are no significant archaeological findings. There is no physical evidence of anything. The only forensics done was by Dr Charles Larsen. Nuff said. There is no circumstantial evidence.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,750
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 7, 2023 8:54:59 GMT
If you look at the eyewitness evidence only, you see that they agree on pretty much everything and they are also corroborated by the evidence from documents, archaeology, forensics, physical and circumstantial evidence. They are not. Corroborated and contrived are different, however, it can be accepted there has been an orchestrated litany of lies. All the documents are chosen for suggestiveness, others discarded. Relevant documents are used, irrelevant ones are not. None of that is true. You are lying that there is a lack of other evidence, to divert from the genuine lack of evidence of mass transports and accommodation of over a million Jews from the AR camps by the end of 1943.
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 7, 2023 16:39:46 GMT
Arguments from incredulity about utensils are even more unimpressive. Can you find me the utensils for ethnic German deportees from the Volga German ASSR? What are you talking about? I'm responding to your babbling about utensils. Generally, mass relocations had historically not included catering and often involved those relocated figuring stuff out for themselves. That is not what hearsay means. Hearsay is a witness repeating what they have been told and not what they saw. uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/8-205-5143?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true"A written or oral statement made otherwise than by a witness giving their own first-hand evidence in proceedings..." www.defence-barrister.co.uk/hearsay"If you want to prove something to be true in court, the usual rule is that you have to call the person at trial who saw or heard it to give their first-hand account. Where this witness is unavailable, you cannot get round the problem by: Calling a third party to tell the court what the original witness told them about it; or Producing a written witness statement or other document to prove it, even if this is from the original witness and contains their first-hand account of what took place. This type of evidence is known as Hearsay, i.e. evidence intended to prove something as true from a witness who is not in court to give that evidence him or herself." Exactly. You're not in any court proceedings, you're a guy with an Internet connection and your stock and trade is digital hearsay. Glad you made strides to finally figure it out by posting two quotes agreeing with what I said. There is something you are missing, when it comes to cross-examination. I gave you a clue above. What would a lawyer who is cross-examining a witness, present the witness with? You failed to answer that question. Why? I tasked several AI language models to interpret this and they're not sure what you mean either. To be charitable, you're smugly implying that there's no questions one could ask because reasons. Not so and in any case irrelevant. You asked for the most reliable way; it's not my problem that it wasn't employed or didn't arise in particular circumstances, nor is it a flaw in my answer. The Jewish and Nazis agreed, whether that was Belzec, Sobibor, TII or A-B. That is compelling corroborating evidence. The Nazis admitted to mass gassings. They were not stupid enough to deny the undeniable. The Belzec trial defendants - 7 out of 8 got off in early stages and the eighth got a light sentence - sure weren't stupid for deftly navigating the German legal-political landscape. After all, they did participate in a disreputable, messy, deadly affair at Belzec and got away with it amid a political maelstrom. One could get more years in prison for just assaulting someone. What is the most reliable way to assess witness truthfulness? Why are you unable to answer that question? Asked and answered.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,750
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 7, 2023 16:54:49 GMT
What are you talking about? I'm responding to your babbling about utensils. Generally, mass relocations had historically not included catering and often involved those relocated figuring stuff out for themselves. The Nazis recorded taking everything, including underwear, hair, gold teeth, spectacles, walking sticks and the suitcases from people denier suggest were being relocated. Those quotes explain that hearsay is when a witness speaks to what someone else has told them. Deniers conflate hearsay with eyewitness evidence, to make that evidence appear less credible. If only eyewitness evidence is used, the evidence is more consistent and corroborated by other evidence. You are dodging my question, to avoid admitting that when a witness is cross-examined, they not being tested purely on credibility, they are being tested in the context of the other evidence. Evidence determines truthfulness, which is a different issue from credibility. Deniers constantly confuse credibility with truthfulness. Truthfulness is reliably assessed by corroborating evidence. If there is evidence that is independent of the witness, that agrees with the witness, then that witness is being truthful. Deniers think that their opinion on the witnesses credibility is the best test of truthfulness, which is obviously wrong, considering how biased deniers are and their desire to disbelieve. You would laugh at anyone else who argued that because they believe a witness, therefore the witness is telling the truth. The Jewish witnesses to mass gassings at the AR camps and A-B Kremas are corroborated by the Nazi witnesses, the physical remains of the chambers and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, no mass departures and the mass theft of personal property. The witness evidence is also supported by the Nazis having motive, opportunity and their guilty conduct after the crime, by trying to hide what they had done.
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 7, 2023 18:46:34 GMT
I'm responding to your babbling about utensils. Generally, mass relocations had historically not included catering and often involved those relocated figuring stuff out for themselves. The Nazis recorded taking everything, including underwear, hair, gold teeth, spectacles, walking sticks and the suitcases from people denier suggest were being relocated. If the case, so what? Have you even read all of these documents? Those quotes explain that hearsay is when a witness speaks to what someone else has told them. Deniers conflate hearsay with eyewitness evidence, to make that evidence appear less credible. If only eyewitness evidence is used, the evidence is more consistent and corroborated by other evidence. That's a shame, you misread your own quotes. Try reading them again. You are dodging my question, to avoid admitting that when a witness is cross-examined, they not being tested purely on credibility, they are being tested in the context of the other evidence. Evidence determines truthfulness, which is a different issue from credibility. Deniers constantly confuse credibility with truthfulness. legaldictionary.net/cross-examination/Truthfulness is reliably assessed by corroborating evidence. If there is evidence that is independent of the witness, that agrees with the witness, then that witness is being truthful. Deniers think that their opinion on the witnesses credibility is the best test of truthfulness, which is obviously wrong, considering how biased deniers are and their desire to disbelieve. Examination goes both ways. Also, "deniers" were just criticized above for supposedly not distinguishing between truthfulness and credibility. Nice blatant misuse. You would laugh at anyone else who argued that because they believe a witness, therefore the witness is telling the truth. You're right, I am laughing at someone claiming that. The Jewish witnesses to mass gassings at the AR camps and A-B Kremas are corroborated by the Nazi witnesses, the physical remains of the chambers and the circumstantial evidence of mass arrivals, no mass departures and the mass theft of personal property. The witness evidence is also supported by the Nazis having motive, opportunity and their guilty conduct after the crime, by trying to hide what they had done. Your prayer is noted.
|
|
Nessie
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ง๐๐ซ๐๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐ฟ
Posts: 5,750
|
Post by Nessie on Feb 7, 2023 19:57:34 GMT
The Nazis recorded taking everything, including underwear, hair, gold teeth, spectacles, walking sticks and the suitcases from people denier suggest were being relocated. If the case, so what? Have you even read all of these documents? "So what?" The mass theft of everything, is circumstantial evidence of gassing, not resettlement. Go through the quotes and explain how they should be interpreted as "out of court statements not subject to cross examination". What is the most reliable method for causing doubt about a witness? You will not answer that question, so I will answer for you. The answer is to present the witness with evidence that contradicts their claims. Deniers concentrate only on credibility and ignore truthfulness. Since someone can be credible and a total liar, credibility does not determine truthfulness. Deniers claim that since they do not believe the witnesses, therefore they are lying. Why do you not laugh at that? Gathering evidence is how historical events are determined. The denier method of using only opinion is clearly flawed.
|
|
Agandaur
โ๏ธ
๐๐๐ญ๐ซ๐ข๐๐ข๐๐ง
Posts: 137
|
Post by Agandaur on Feb 7, 2023 20:01:59 GMT
The Nazis recorded taking everything, from people denier suggest were being relocated. They were relocated into labour camps as prisoners. All prisoners have clothing removed and personal items. In Auschwitz they were given uniforms. The labour camps for the most part provided for all physical needs.
|
|
|
Post by wheelbarrow on Feb 8, 2023 16:14:53 GMT
If the case, so what? Have you even read all of these documents? "So what?" The mass theft of everything, is circumstantial evidence of gassing, not resettlement. Nope. Mass confiscation of property was also an United Nations favorite. It does not indicate gassing rather than resettlement. The expulsions of Germans from Czechoslovakia, except those deemed important to the industries, is among many examples. There were no utensils arranged for Germans; rather, some were given only 30 mins to leave their homes with personal belongings and days of food. At least a hundred thousand are supposedly unaccounted for, which does not lend support for fantasy killing methods. Go through the quotes and explain how they should be interpreted as "out of court statements not subject to cross examination". "A written or oral statement made otherwise than by a witness giving their own first-hand evidence in proceedings..." " This type of evidence is known as Hearsay, i.e. evidence intended to prove something as true from a witness who is not in court to give that evidence him or herself." What is the most reliable method for causing doubt about a witness? You will not answer that question, so I will answer for you. The answer is to present the witness with evidence that contradicts their claims. Or simply press for details, probe around or let them continue their story past the initial spiel they're comfortable with. That worked with the judge examining nutjob Gerstein and it's cheap and easy. Of course, the regular professional move is to take multiple rounds of declarations beforehand, then in court elicit what are anticipated to be prior inconsistent statements or just flailing. You'll probably have a lot of material to work with and grind down everyone, especially the "German perpetrators." Deniers concentrate only on credibility and ignore truthfulness. Since someone can be credible and a total liar, credibility does not determine truthfulness. Again, you seem to be the one confused. You said: According to your standard, a modern AI language model like ChatGPT or a well-researched fiction author can generate a script consistent with your evidence and if those magic words are said, that'll be that - fully truthful. Deniers claim that since they do not believe the witnesses, therefore they are lying. Why do you not laugh at that? That's a matter of strong language. Sure, a statement of disbelief, depending on what is articulated in support of that disbelief, could implicate just personal feelings or also a witness' credibility. Gathering evidence is how historical events are determined. The denier method of using only opinion is clearly flawed. Effective cross-examination creates a testimonial record and is therefore gathering evidence.
|
|