Wetzelrad;
viewtopic.php?p=24966#p24966
Some of the context makes it even worse, especially the sentence just prior to that you quoted, where Kermish wrote that a witness account "might contain occasional mistakes." This is a very casual, lake-monster-esque way of dismissing what can actually be -- as we have often seen -- very substantial differences between witnesses or between a witness and hard evidence.
Witness will make mistake and for you to doubt that is clearly wrong. There are not very substantial differences between the witnesses to the gassings at the death camps. They are highly consistent in how the process worked. Variances are in the details, which revisionists concentrate on. Witnesses are better at remembering the main event, than the details, such as people were herded into a chamber, which is the main event and then the details, such as how long they were in that chamber.
But what makes this worse is that it comes directly prior to all the remarks about "reminding" the witness of facts and events. Is this not a description of witness coaching?
Yes. This quote from a previous post by pilgromofdark, describes witness coaching.
"...the data collector should remind the witness of facts not only by asking him relevant questions, but also by recounting well-known events from the subject under discussion (association method). A witness’s memory is often jogged upon hearing the testimony of another witness who lived through similar experiences."
In Scotland, the police would ask open questions and not give witnesses other witnesses evidence prior to taking their statement. From the source used for the above quote;
https://www.vr-elibrary.de/doi/pdf/10.1 ... 3666368561
"The data collector’s approach to the witness should always be individualized.
One should therefore avoid acting like an obedient clerk administering
a preset template. Thus, e. g., when approaching an intelligent witness,
one can suggest that he writes down his experiences by himself in as
exhaustive and as lucid a manner as possible. One can also ask such a
witness a number of questions taken from the questionnaire. Often,
especially if the witness is direct, honest, and open, one should write down
|8| his testimony without interrupting his train of thought. At most, one
could ask questions to clarify a point in his testimony. When the witness
has finished, we can ask him questions from the questionnaire."
That is the methodology used by the Scottish police, for all, not just "intelligent" witnesses. This is also a rule used in Scotland;
"Under no circumstances may the data collector change anything in the
witness’s testimony. If the witness’s account is so disjointed that the data
collector needs to shape his thoughts into sentences, as a court reporter
does, the data collector must be especially careful not to distort or change
a single detail of the facts provided by the witness."
Statement altering is forbidden. Then comes the section on witness coaching;
"The data collector should offer to help refresh the witness’s memory."
That coaching is given context;
"If the [intellectual] level of the witness allows it, the data collector should
familiarize him with the issues being researched to the greatest extent
possible. Before taking down testimonies, some data collectors try to
familiarize the witnesses with |10| issues contained in the questionnaire
that relate to Jewish life under occupation."
Coaching only applies to unintelligent witnesses who are struggling to remember anything. Otherwise, witnesses should be left to recollect as best as they can and no alterations are to be made. Pilgromofdark is guilty of cherry picking one of the instructions to the statement takers, as if it applies to all the witnesses. Witness coaching was not as widespread as he suggests as it is only used in specific cases.
