Historians v revisionists, methodology.

[Nessie]

Again, there is confusion over the burden of proof.

viewtopic.php?p=23008#p23008

f you are accused of a murder that you didn’t commit then a cast-iron alibi proving you were in another country at the time of the murder proves you are innocent. You do NOT have to find who actually did the murder to be declared innocent.

The alibi has to be evidenced and proven. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that they did not commit the murder as they were in another country at the time. They would need to provide, or otherwise show the court where the evidence is that they were abroad.

That is why, if Holocaust revisionists want to be taken seriously as historical revisionists, when they claim no crime was committed, the burden of proof is on them to prove no crime was committed. They could do that by proving millions of Jews left the AR camps, Chelmno and A-B, who were still alive in the camps and ghettos in 1944 and were liberated in 1945. They cannot do it by claiming the crime alleged was, as far as they can work out, physically impossible.

[Stubble]

So, guilty until proven innocent. Got it.

You know, that seems like an inversion of the legal standard as I understand it, where the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

[Nessie]

So, guilty until proven innocent. Got it.

You know, that seems like an inversion of the legal standard as I understand it, where the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

No, you have not got it. If an accused person states they have an alibi, the burden of proof is on them to prove the alibi. It would be up to them to name a person who will state that they were abroad at the time of the crime, or provide the name of the hotel they were staying in, for the police to then confirm that claim is true. If someone claims they were abroad when a crime was committed and there is no evidence that they can provide to prove that, then that defence will fail.

[Keen]

Again, there is confusion over the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim

Nesserto:

The Nazis were not trying to magically disappear the corpses and the graves.

All the mass graves dug by the Nazis, and the corpses they cremated, are still at the AR camps.

Mass graves are proven. By all normal standards of evidencing, they are proven.

I can point to them in the ground.

What are you waiting for roberta?

What are you so afraid of?

[Hektor]

So, guilty until proven innocent. Got it.

You know, that seems like an inversion of the legal standard as I understand it, where the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

That inversion was standard for trials relating to the Holocaust subject.

[Nessie]

So, guilty until proven innocent. Got it.

You know, that seems like an inversion of the legal standard as I understand it, where the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

That inversion was standard for trials relating to the Holocaust subject.

Please evidence that claim.