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 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.

[to nessie]
The pulpil on display here from you is impossible for any rational person to ignore, and, as you circle the drain, you think your ardent defense of this shit is rational and effective, because you sir, are a clown.

If it will never admit the truth about the fraudulently alleged "huge mass graves" of T II, why keep giving it opportunities to lie about other subjects?

It is a phychopath. It will never change. It will never stop lying. It will never stop being a clown.

[Nessie]

.....

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.

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.

Prove to me that best practice with witnesses is not to interview them, but to ask them to provide their own statement.

Show me how you analyse statements and evidence to determine its truthfulness and accuracy. Use a specific witness and piece of evidence as examples.

[Keen]

Prove to me...

[Nessie]

viewtopic.php?p=25158#p25158

One has to ask what or who specifically Browning considers a credible witness to homicidal gassings. There is plenty that could probably credibly testify to deportation and detention, which is well documented. But who can do that with 'homicidal gassings'?

As a Holohoaxer, he probably considered credible witnesses to homicidal gassings all those who talked about homicidal gassings without embarrassing him and his colleagues with too many impossible claims, verifiably-false details and outdated lies.

Hoess is a terrible witness for many reasons. BUT...

1 - he was Auschwitz commander which means his admission there were gas chambers and mass murder is credible, since, if anyone was to know what was taking place, it was him.
2 - he is corroborated by camp staff and multiple prisoners that there were gas chambers and mass murder.
3 - his errors in the details can be explained by the beatings, and pressure he was under. Impossible claims and verifiably false details do not prove lying.

That is why he is used as a witness by historians. So-called revisionists do not know how to prove Hoess lied, let alone actually prove he lied and there were no gas chambers and mass murder.

[Keen]

2 - he is corroborated by camp staff and multiple prisoners that there were gas chambers and mass murder.

cor·rob·or·ation

evidence which confirms - OR - supports a statement or theory

When you use the word "corroboration" - do you mean "confirm" or "support"?

[HansHill]

viewtopic.php?p=25158#p25158

One has to ask what or who specifically Browning considers a credible witness to homicidal gassings. There is plenty that could probably credibly testify to deportation and detention, which is well documented. But who can do that with 'homicidal gassings'?

As a Holohoaxer, he probably considered credible witnesses to homicidal gassings all those who talked about homicidal gassings without embarrassing him and his colleagues with too many impossible claims, verifiably-false details and outdated lies.

Hoess is a terrible witness for many reasons. BUT...

1 - he was Auschwitz commander which means his admission there were gas chambers and mass murder is credible, since, if anyone was to know what was taking place, it was him.
2 - he is corroborated by camp staff and multiple prisoners that there were gas chambers and mass murder.
3 - his errors in the details can be explained by the beatings, and pressure he was under. Impossible claims and verifiably false details do not prove lying.

That is why he is used as a witness by historians. So-called revisionists do not know how to prove Hoess lied, let alone actually prove he lied and there were no gas chambers and mass murder.

You are such a muppet it's beyond believe. How you can sit with a straight face and tow the line between he was tortured into making inconsequential errors yet the torture had no impact on the material details would be comical if it weren't so utterly delusional.

Since you are such a muppet, and since you prattle on about being the bestest witness interrogator ever, I will list here actual witness studies showing beyond any shadow of a doubt that torture precipitously and irrevocably increases the likelihood of a false confessions.

1) Catlin et al - This research reviewed 29 studies on how different interrogation methods affect confessions. The findings show that accusatorial methods (where the interrogator assumes guilt and applies pressure) produce fewer true confessions and result in a "much higher rate of false confessions". Note the authors state plainly that this is both statistically significant, and calls for reforms in interrogation best practices. Because this is from 2024 and i can only assume you have been retired for >3 years this means that all your amazing """training""" that you love to prattle on about is scientifically bunk aswell as outdated, so please keep your opinions about this to yourself in future you muppet.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39391273/

2a) Kassin et al - This research indicates that false confessions can be predictably obtained between 65% and 69% of the time in what the authors call "fast pace" scenarios which is a proxy for high-stress as opposed to low stress. In the 65-69% of cases, a false written confession was obtained versus only 35% in the "slow pace" control. In both fast and slow paced versions of the coercion, the participant was innocent.

https://saulkassin.org/wp-content/uploa ... l_1996.pdf

This brings us to...

2b) Kassin et al - Same author as before prepares a summary review of high profile US cases where false confessions were obtained by various means and since had to be overturned.

http://cda.psych.uiuc.edu/sgep_course_m ... -33-67.pdf

3) O'Mara et al - Direct quote from the paper: "However, this folk model of neuropsychological function fails, and fails dramatically, on contact with what is known about the brain....The evidence all points in the same direction: extreme stressors of the type used during torture impair cognition, memory, and mood in all of their phases. Hence, the historic and contemporary veridical information yield from torture has been nugatory, while the false positive rate and false confession rate have been remarkably high. The extreme stressor states employed during torture need to be seen for what they are: utterly inimical to reliable and veridical information gathering and information discovery"

https://annas-archive.gl/scidb/10.1017/pls.2019.15/

4) C.A. Morgan et al - A study on high-stress and misinformation leading to embedding false memories within a witness during interrogation. Direct quote from the paper: In addition, however, the present data confirm that memories for stressful events are also highly vulnerable to modification by exposure to misinformation. Indeed, with very little effort we were able to create false memories in a population of military personnel who are trained to resist propaganda and misinformation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 271200088X

5) In the United States Supreme Court Case Brown vs Mississipi 1936, ruled that any forced confession obtained via torture is inadmissible, and in the case of Brown were overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Mississippi

B-b-b-but I'm the best interview guy

STFU you muppet and stop embarrassing yourself.

[Nessie]

viewtopic.php?p=25158#p25158

As a Holohoaxer, he probably considered credible witnesses to homicidal gassings all those who talked about homicidal gassings without embarrassing him and his colleagues with too many impossible claims, verifiably-false details and outdated lies.

Hoess is a terrible witness for many reasons. BUT...

1 - he was Auschwitz commander which means his admission there were gas chambers and mass murder is credible, since, if anyone was to know what was taking place, it was him.
2 - he is corroborated by camp staff and multiple prisoners that there were gas chambers and mass murder.
3 - his errors in the details can be explained by the beatings, and pressure he was under. Impossible claims and verifiably false details do not prove lying.

That is why he is used as a witness by historians. So-called revisionists do not know how to prove Hoess lied, let alone actually prove he lied and there were no gas chambers and mass murder.

You are such a muppet it's beyond believe. How you can sit with a straight face and tow the line between he was tortured into making inconsequential errors yet the torture had no impact on the material details would be comical if it weren't so utterly delusional.

Since you are such a muppet, and since you prattle on about being the bestest witness interrogator ever, I will list here actual witness studies showing beyond any shadow of a doubt that torture precipitously and irrevocably increases the likelihood of a false confessions.

1) Catlin et al - This research reviewed 29 studies on how different interrogation methods affect confessions. The findings show that accusatorial methods (where the interrogator assumes guilt and applies pressure) produce fewer true confessions and result in a "much higher rate of false confessions". Note the authors state plainly that this is both statistically significant, and calls for reforms in interrogation best practices. Because this is from 2024 and i can only assume you have been retired for >3 years this means that all your amazing """training""" that you love to prattle on about is scientifically bunk aswell as outdated, so please keep your opinions about this to yourself in future you muppet.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39391273/

2a) Kassin et al - This research indicates that false confessions can be predictably obtained between 65% and 69% of the time in what the authors call "fast pace" scenarios which is a proxy for high-stress as opposed to low stress. In the 65-69% of cases, a false written confession was obtained versus only 35% in the "slow pace" control. In both fast and slow paced versions of the coercion, the participant was innocent.

https://saulkassin.org/wp-content/uploa ... l_1996.pdf

This brings us to...

2b) Kassin et al - Same author as before prepares a summary review of high profile US cases where false confessions were obtained by various means and since had to be overturned.

http://cda.psych.uiuc.edu/sgep_course_m ... -33-67.pdf

3) O'Mara et al - Direct quote from the paper: "However, this folk model of neuropsychological function fails, and fails dramatically, on contact with what is known about the brain....The evidence all points in the same direction: extreme stressors of the type used during torture impair cognition, memory, and mood in all of their phases. Hence, the historic and contemporary veridical information yield from torture has been nugatory, while the false positive rate and false confession rate have been remarkably high. The extreme stressor states employed during torture need to be seen for what they are: utterly inimical to reliable and veridical information gathering and information discovery"

https://annas-archive.gl/scidb/10.1017/pls.2019.15/

4) C.A. Morgan et al - A study on high-stress and misinformation leading to embedding false memories within a witness during interrogation. Direct quote from the paper: In addition, however, the present data confirm that memories for stressful events are also highly vulnerable to modification by exposure to misinformation. Indeed, with very little effort we were able to create false memories in a population of military personnel who are trained to resist propaganda and misinformation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 271200088X

5) In the United States Supreme Court Case Brown vs Mississipi 1936, ruled that any forced confession obtained via torture is inadmissible, and in the case of Brown were overturned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Mississippi

B-b-b-but I'm the best interview guy

STFU you muppet and stop embarrassing yourself.

How has it been proven that evidence obtained under torture produces a higher rate of false confessions and impairs memory?

[Keen]

How has it been proven...

If you want to talk about proof, then define what standard of proof you are talking about:

Arranged from lowest to highest, the standards of proof in American law follow a rough hierarchy:

Reasonable suspicion: Enough specific facts to justify a brief police stop, but well short of what’s needed for an arrest or a search warrant.

Probable cause: A fair probability that a crime occurred or evidence will be found, sufficient for an arrest or warrant.

Substantial evidence: Enough that a reasonable person could accept it as adequate, used when courts review agency decisions.

Preponderance of the evidence: More likely than not, the default for most civil lawsuits.

Clear and convincing evidence: Highly probable, reserved for civil matters with serious consequences like fraud claims or termination of parental rights.

Beyond a reasonable doubt: Firm conviction of guilt, required for all criminal convictions.

Absolute certainty: A state of knowledge or proof so complete that there is no possibility of doubt or uncertainty

[Keen]

Impossible claims and verifiably false details do not prove lying.

But, but, but... those "impossible calims and verifyably false details" were "corroborated"!

Round and round and round the mentally ill cult member goes, with its "convergence of evidence" nonsense (conveniently renamed "corroboration") never actually proving a thing.

No wonder it and its fellow HC cult members are so afraid of actual debate.

[Nessie]

....
You are such a muppet it's beyond believe. How you can sit with a straight face and tow the line between he was tortured into making inconsequential errors yet the torture had no impact on the material details would be comical if it weren't so utterly delusional.

Since you are such a muppet, and since you prattle on about being the bestest witness interrogator ever, I will list here actual witness studies showing beyond any shadow of a doubt that torture precipitously and irrevocably increases the likelihood of a false confessions.

....

2a) Kassin et al - This research indicates that false confessions can be predictably obtained between 65% and 69% of the time in what the authors call "fast pace" scenarios which is a proxy for high-stress as opposed to low stress. In the 65-69% of cases, a false written confession was obtained versus only 35% in the "slow pace" control. In both fast and slow paced versions of the coercion, the participant was innocent.

https://saulkassin.org/wp-content/uploa ... l_1996.pdf

....

How did Kassin et al establish that 65 to 69% of confessions were false? What did they do to ensure the study was accurate?

[HansHill]

Is there any particular reason for not engaging with the literature directly and finding out?

[Nessie]

Is there any particular reason for not engaging with the literature directly and finding out?

I think the reason you are not answering is either because you don't know, or you do not want to deal with the answer.

https://saulkassin.org/wp-content/uploa ... l_1996.pdf

In the introduction, the study authors discuss the retraction of coerced testimony and false confessions. But how do they know? The answer is that there is evidence the testimony was coerced and it was false. There is evidence Hoess was coerced, there is even a photo of his injuries, but, this is where you fall down, there is no evidence is confessions were false, as in there had been no gas chamber and no mass murders.

The experiment that achieved the 65-69% result, was a controlled experiment, where those involved were innocent of the accusation put to them. So, there was evidence of coercion and evidence of innocence, since if innocence was not proven, then the result of 65-69% is not reliable. People who are subject to coercion will tell the truth. They may have even told the truth without having to be subjected to coercion.

So, for you to use those studies as evidence to support your beliefs, you need to show me your evidence that proves there were no gas chambers and mass murders at A-B when Hoess was Commander.

[Keen]

So, for you to use those studies as evidence to support your beliefs, you need to show me your evidence that proves...

Speaking of evidence that actually proves something:

No credible / ethical investigator would maliciously call a skeptic a “holocaust denier” for simply asking to see the alleged “scientific proof” that these mass graves actually exist ( http://thisisaboutscience.com/ ) or steadfastly refuse to show him / her the human remains which they are allegedly “denying.” (Remember, one cannot “deny” something that does not exist or that has never been proven to be true.)

“HUGE MASS GRAVES”

are easily identifiable physical entities.

I refuse to believe in the existence of any

physical entity that I am not allowed to see.

If you want me to believe, then simply:

Show me that which you allege I deny.