Witness Question for Nessie

[Keen]

The way you conduct witness interviews there and the way you handle witness statements is abhorrent. You try that in a court looking for the truth, and, you will get fucking ripped up one side and down the other. That is absolute NOT how it is done here, and that you don't see the problem with it explains a lot about why you don't see the holes in the Holocaust narrative. Your idea of 'justice' is narrative driven tellings constructed from witness statements refined through narrative smithing. My idea of justice is truth finding by analysis of statements and evidence.

Here, if a statement doesn't fit, we don't go ask for clarification from someone who lied about something, you discount that witness and move the fuck on, because they won't hold up in court at that point anyhow.

That is why nessie is terrified of even the idea of facing off against Mr. Gerdes in a U.S. court.

[Stubble]

You fucking idiot, we are talking about a hoax at Treblinka. You are defaulting to 'all or nothing' as a dichotomy.

Treblinka isn't 'the Holocaust', Auschwitz isn't 'the Holocaust'. These are specific and distinct places of a discrete size and in known physical locations.

Which means to hoax the Holocaust, needs the management of multiple sites. The Soviets failed to pass off a hoax about just one site.

Sites that have never been properly investigated and are now covered in concrete, steel and jagged stones...

It is only your biased opinion that they have not been properly investigated.

Generally, with a literate witness, which Wiernik was, seeing as he was a graduate, you have them write their statement.

What is that claim based on? Wiernik had his statement taken by various investigators. The Polish War Crimes Commission took numerous statements;

https://www.zapisyterroru.pl/dlibra/res ... 20camp&p=0

The police in the UK take all statements, none are self penned.

The UK is such a silly fucking place. An official takes the statement because witnesses are not properly educated to write their own statement? This is so fucking stupid.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters. ... tPage=true

You are technically correct, although, the UK differs from the US where the witness writes their statement, and, i don't see anything about 3 people sharing one sheet of paper to take the notes.

"AI Overview. In the US, witnesses rarely write their own statements from scratch; instead, the investigating police officer conducts an interview and drafts the written statement on behalf of the witness. The witness then reviews it for accuracy, makes any necessary changes, and signs it under penalty of perjury"

Same as the UK. Wiernik's statement that is in more than one person's handwriting is odd, but, it is clear that has happened.

You also don't fucking edit a statement 'because new evidence is found' either. It stands or falls on its content. You fucking clown.

Yes you do. If a witness provides a statement that is then contradicted by another witness, or some evidence becomes known that the witness did not mention, they will be re-interviewed and a supplementary or new edited version will be created. That is standard practice with the UK police and from what I have seen with Wiernik, it happened with him as well. You just do not know about the re-interviewing of witnesses, because of your lack of training and experience.

Again this appears to be correct for the UK. You try that shit in the US and the defense is going to fucking tear you apart, and rightly so. The idea that you can just edit a witness statement to conform to new evidence is just so fucking slimy and nasty. You don't find the truth that way, you construct a coherent narrative. Justice should be above all about truth.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

It is fine to edit statements, so long as the edits are shown. Edits primarily consist of clarifications, additions or retractions. So, Wiernik's first statement shows edits, where another has added to it and then his book has a retraction, where he does not refer to the chlorine claim. Those changes are not hidden.

I would like you to evidence your claim that only one witness statement can be taken in the USA and no form of edit is allowed to clarify, add or retract anything.

The entire fucking reason to follow up with an interview after a statement is to fucking catch shit like this so you can wash out a witness or catch a guilty party, for fucks sake. You do not have 3 people in the room to take a statement all sharing the same fucking page. This is absolutely out of character with any kind of professional investigation of any sort. It is not 'normal' or 'procedural'.

Follow up interviews are not necessarily about catching witnesses out. They are often to clarify or ask about something that had been missed before. It could simply be that the witness forgot to mention something, that they are later asked about and provide a supplementary statement for. The police often use two interviewers, it is standard practice in Sotland due to corroboration rules. Of course, you know nothing about any of this and think it is all unusual.

I understand seeking a clarification, that is not what fucking happened here. Part of the statement was excised because it was false.

It is likely that the chlorine claim was dropped because it was not corroborated or otherwise established to be wrong. There is nothing wrong with doing that, especially when the earlier version with the claim is still available, to show the changes.

It is highly unusual for a fucking propagandist to work with 2 separate underground propaganda mills...

What do you base that claim on? In Poland Oneg Shabbat, Polish journalists and the Polish Intelligence Services reporting back to the Government in Exile in London were gathering witness evidence as to what was happening to Jews in the country. For Wiernik to have provided multiple statements is not unusual.

He provided the one written statement and from it was drafted what would become the template about the camp, and, it diverges from his written statement, and it passed through all these organizations AFTER it was collected, not during the collection process. You are framing this like some natural thing one would expect where he gave multiple statements and there were just some small errors in them but the core thesis was consistent, that is not what the fuck this is.

Yes it is. A witness who gives multiple statements to different people, will not give the same statement twice, there will be variances.

... and then for the city council to have a 'diet' around the propaganda and then for the propaganda to have another 'diet' before being translated into another fucking language.

What are you going on about?

The Diet of the underground judenrat (Warsaw Circle, oneg shabbat, the 'coordination council' etc.) before A Year in Treblinka was put to print and the further Diet in New York it underwent before being printed in English.

That you see this as anything other than odd is some kind of cognitive dissonance or other cognitive defect. It is patently fucking obvious.

You are defending the indefensible.

Your ignorance around how evidence was gathered, who by and how witnesses are interviewed, is being made more and more apparent by your posting.

My ignorance of some terrible practices used the the UK is apparent. The way you conduct witness interviews there and the way you handle witness statements is abhorrent. You try that in a court looking for the truth, and, you will get fucking ripped up one side and down the other.

The police interviewing witnesses is standard practice in the UK and I have an AI overview that it is also standard in the USA.

That is absolute NOT how it is done here, and that you don't see the problem with it explains a lot about why you don't see the holes in the Holocaust narrative. Your idea of 'justice' is narrative driven tellings constructed from witness statements refined through narrative smithing. My idea of justice is truth finding by analysis of statements and evidence.

Here, if a statement doesn't fit, we don't go ask for clarification from someone who lied about something, you discount that witness and move the fuck on, because they won't hold up in court at that point anyhow.

I don't believe you. I think you are making that up.

The latest HoloCast seems to belong here and so I will link it;

You are ignorant of investigation and witness interviews. Your claim that the only acceptable statements are one's the witness composed themselves, and there can be no clarification, is made up.

Ladies and gentlemen, behold, Nessie, in all his glory.

The parts in bold are so alien to me that I can not even understand how they fall out of someone's mouth. People in the UK are so thoroughly fucking bent.

The post deserves to go some place where it can be seen by the public.

The way you conduct witness interviews there and the way you handle witness statements is abhorrent. You try that in a court looking for the truth, and, you will get fucking ripped up one side and down the other. That is absolute NOT how it is done here, and that you don't see the problem with it explains a lot about why you don't see the holes in the Holocaust narrative. Your idea of 'justice' is narrative driven tellings constructed from witness statements refined through narrative smithing. My idea of justice is truth finding by analysis of statements and evidence.

Here, if a statement doesn't fit, we don't go ask for clarification from someone who lied about something, you discount that witness and move the fuck on, because they won't hold up in court at that point anyhow.

That is why nessie is terrified of even the idea of facing off against Mr. Gerdes in a U.S. court.

Actually, remarkably, he thinks I am kidding.

[Keen]

To summarize, you are correct and you add balance to the debate by pointing out that exactly 0 huge mass graves have ever been proven to exist. My belief that there 'should be' 'some' is not of any evidentiary value, currently there are exactly 0 proven mass graves at these sites.

nessie:

A mass grave is defined as a grave containing multiple human corpses, or the remains of multiple people.

Nessie, how many actual mass graves did CSC actually prove actually exist within the boundary of the Treblinka II camp?

nessie's answer:

12 - G32, G29, G1, G44, G4, G38, G36, G50, G51, G52, G53, G54.