Archie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 19, 2026 2:03 pm
Nessie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 18, 2026 12:40 pm
I did pick a witness to analyse in detail, Krzepicki, but Archie got upset because his testimony is long.
You are referring to a discussion from like three years ago. We asked you to pick a witness to defend in detail. You then cited a long testimony and refused to refer to any specifics, provide any quotes, or make any actual arguments defending the testimony. I called you out for that because you were obviously giving us the runaround. Just like you are doing in this thread. These reason you do this is because you know that any detailed evaluation of these witnesses will not go well for you.
Rubbish, I can easily explain my evaluation of the witnesses, based on corroboration, accuracy, credibility, truthfulness, with reference to studies of witnesses, memory and recall.
You cannot do any of that.
You suggestion that we are somehow dodging you on Krzepicki is hilarious given that K has been a major topic of discussion on the forum of late, including important new information, none of which you have responded to.
https://codoh.com/library/document/comp ... krzepicki/
I don't go into much of the forum, as you have censored me from replying. It makes no sense that you criticise me for picking Krzepicki, as his testimony is too long and then you claim there has been a lot of discussion about him. If that is the case, you should be able to discuss his testimony. As for a "detailed evaluation", you are not capable of doing that, since your methodology is so flawed, for reason you got so annoyed about, that is why I am so restricted to where I can post.
https://codoh.com/library/document/comp ... krzepicki/
" But what happens when a single testimony exists in multiple versions, bears clear traces of editorial intervention, and resists secure dating? This article argues that such problems are not merely factual inconveniences. They reveal something more fundamental about the collaborative and iterative nature of Holocaust testimony production, where the boundaries between witness, recorder and editor are frequently blurred – boundaries that historians have rarely attempted to clarify."
When a witness is interviewed on multiple occasions, they will not say the same thing each time. They will, especially when asked different questions, recollect different details. Memory fades and gets corrupted as a witness finds out new facts. A court testimony, which bans hearsay, will be different to an interview with a journalist, which does not. Historians are not going to go into detail, for their readers, why they think a witness said different things at different times.
"The Krzepicki case also demonstrates the risks of treating Holocaust testimony as a transparent and fixed record divorced from its conditions of production.[70] Questions of mediation, revision, editorial intervention and external motivations are not secondary to the testimony itself, but part of the historical evidence historians must account for when interpreting such texts."
That critique applies to ALL witnesses, who give multiple statements. A witness who gives an interview to a journalist, and a statement to a police officer and then gives evidence in court, will exhibit the same variances and progression as Krzepicki's testimony. That article has raised various valid points about witness evidence in general, not specific to Krzepicki, or Holocaust witnesses. It does not say anything that is evidence Krzepicki lied about his experiences as a prisoner in TII. There is no "important new information", as what the article discusses has been known about witnesses for a long time already. It appears new to you, because of your lack of training and experience.