after 82 years Germany still under shadow of war Crimes

[wm]

In Germany (and in Poland) the public prosecutor's office and police are responsible for establishing incriminating evidence, not courts.
That no such evidence has emerged means it doesn't exist. The reason is simple all witnesses are dead or at best senile.
The fact they had to resort to the accessory-to-murder lawyer's trick is further proof of that.

Even more, because all witnesses are dead or at best senile the accused are denied the most fundamental right of defense.
In Poland, prisoners sometimes testified in defense of the accused SS-men, or exculpatory evidence was delivered from places they were born and lived. After so many years that's not possible.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

I guess I will have to ask again. You post, "I know that because no incriminating evidence exists....." It is a great privilege to have amongst us an expert on these cases. Perhaps you would care to tell us a little about your exhaustive investigations that led you to this conclusion?

You are right. Other parts of the legal system gather evidence and decide what is prosecutable.

Nevertheless, Presumption of innocence exists in all these cases until the court reaches its conclusion. Only if sufficient evidence is thought to exist will these cases even reach court and once there it will have to be of sufficient weight to secure a conviction. Only at that point will there no longer be a presumption of innocence.

You post, "That no such evidence has emerged means it doesn't exist." No it doesn't. It may or may not exist. That is for the legal system to establish.

It is certainly likely to be true that in most cases "all witnesses are dead or at best senile". But again, that is for the legal system to establish.

You post, "The fact they had to resort to the accessory-to-murder lawyer's trick is further proof of that." Why is it a "trick"? If "accessory to murder" didn't already exist in law, they couldn't be charged with it, could they?

You post, "Even more, because all witnesses are dead or at best senile the accused are denied the most fundamental right of defense." Nope. That is likely to be the reason why most of these cases will probably never reach court. The legal system knows this and its processes take this into account, but it can't presume from the start that no such evidence exists and stop investigating accusations.

You post, "In Poland, prisoners sometimes testified in defense of the accused SS-men.....". Quite possibly. So? If that applies in these cases, it is for the legal system to establish. Can we have some examples?

You post".....exculpatory evidence was delivered from places they were born and lived. After so many years that's not possible." Isn't that for the legal system to decide?

From your posts it would appear that you find Jews at the roots of many of Poland's historic problems and want anyone accused of persecuting them to escape investigation, let alone prosecution or conviction. Is that a fair summary of your position?

Cheers,

Sid

[wm]

Well, in my opinion there is no evidence in such cases (because the accused, being utterly insignificant, left no trace except in the memories of people they met).
I don't have to prove my opinions - but I will gladly accept a $100 wager that I'm right.


The European Convention on Human Rights says:

No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed.

The trick is to assume that "accessory to murdered" (which was a thing then) includes "to be in a bad place" (which wasn't) - neatly circumventing the Convention.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

Thanks. Now we know that it is just your opinion and not based on any hard information, we can give your opinion the weight it deserves.

Will you be answering any of the questions I asked last time? I can repeat them if you wish.

Cheers,

Sid.

[wm]

No, because they are your unproven opinions. As they say: what may be asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence.

Actually, it's based on hard evidence, I've read extensively about those cases in Israeli media and even discussed them there, but as it's impossible to prove something doesn't exist (i.e., evidence) I'm not going to return there.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

If you have evidence but won't post it when requested, (1) how can we place any value on your opinion, and (2) what is the point of you posting here at all?

A mystified Sid.

[wm]

I'm not going to search and compile a few dozen (frequently not-well written) articles on this subject, it's well beyond boring.
As I said the fact they resorting to the lawyer's trick is sufficient proof of lack of evidence.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

So, basically you are saying that because wm says so it must have some value here even though wm offers no evidence?

Are you aware that in joining AHF you signed up to the following:

Back up your claims

We wish the forum to maintain a high standard. While posting on the forum isn't on the same level as writing an academic text, we want to maintain a balanced level of scholarship.

When you include a quote, cite the source. Include enough information to allow other members to find the source themselves. As a minimum, include the author, title/issue, and page number (for monographs and serials) or a link to the specific article (for websites).

When you cite a source, the source must be of sufficiently high quality to substantiate the nature of the claim. Do not cite racist or supremacist websites, unsourced secondary articles, opinion pieces and reviews (other than as evidence of the opinion or review itself), or similar sources.

If another member challenge one of your claims, you must cite a source for your claim.

If you make a claim that is obviously controversial, you should cite a source immediately.

Do not post your opinion without supporting it with facts or context.

Cheers,

Sid,

[wm]

As I said the fact they resorting to the lawyer's trick in those trials is sufficient proof of lack of evidence.
This is my evidence.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

So, you offer no evidence, just unsupported opinion.

Cheers,

Sid,

[manfredzhang]

Here is Mr. Thompson's reminder that one should back up his claim.

manfredzhang -- The forum rules say (emphasis added):

5. Back up your claims
We wish the forum to maintain a high standard. While posting on the forum isn't on the same level as writing an academic text, we want to maintain a balanced level of scholarship.

When you include a quote, cite the source. Include enough information to allow other members to find the source themselves. As a minimum, include the author, title/issue, and page number (for monographs and serials) or a link to the specific article (for websites).
When you cite a source, the source must be of sufficiently high quality to substantiate the nature of the claim. Do not cite racist or supremacist websites, unsourced secondary articles, opinion pieces and reviews (other than as evidence of the opinion or review itself), or similar sources.
If another member challenge one of your claims, you must cite a source for your claim.
If you make a claim that is obviously controversial, you should cite a source immediately.
Do not post your opinion without supporting it with facts or context.

app.php/rules

And I complete forget my promise to ignore a typical troll in the forum. I apologize and will in the future keep my promise.

[Linkagain]

Germany Past still keeps coming up.....88 years later.....
https://www.timesofisrael.com/documents ... rs-father/

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Linkagain,

The problem doesn't seem to be Kast's 18 year-old father joining the Nazi Party as its 9,271,831st member in 1943.

The problem seems to be Kast's denial of it.

This is an issue of integrity in current Chilean politics, not of German history.

Cheears,

Sid.