Hearsay Evidence

[Scott Smith]

Sorry, Chuck, I cannot read a closed book! We need to see the Neely and Witton texts, in toto.

If you feel that need, Smith, go get them.

That would be a much better show than defending yourself with claws and teeth against doing what is your encumbrance.

As I said, it's your turn, Chap. A good project for Chuck since it's his baby.

[Roberto]

I need no "evidence to rebut a presumption" here unless it is presumed that the Human Soap MUST be real because it contains a good story about the Nazis.

The presumption we would have here, if it were only that, would be that the conclusions of criminal justice authorities and historians about the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, based on three independent eyewitness depositions and supporting physical and documentary evidence, were correct.

A presumption is always negative without proof offered, particularly if contested.

That’s a good one.

It would mean, for instance, that presumption of innocence benefiting the defendant at a criminal trial is negative without proof offered, particularly if contested.

The burden-of-proof is therefore on the claimant.

That would be the defendant, in the above example.

Which would mean that Smith’s genius has just turned the principle in dubio pro reo into its opposite.

Well done, Mr. Smith!

I do not have to prove a claim false that is not proved true on the basis of reliable evidence.

Sure, but here the “claim” has been proved by evidence that criminal justice authorities and historians considered reliable, which creates at least a presumption in favor of the reliability of such evidence that he who challenges it must refute.

If anything passed as evidence then anything would be true.

Sworn affidavits and photographs are not “anything” by the standards of historiography and criminal justice, but acknowledged and important sources of proof.

They lose that quality when it is demonstrated that they suffer from serious flaws, namely lack of authenticity or credibility.

But it is up to him who alleges such flaws to demonstrate that they exist.

[Scott Smith]

Whether you like it or not, I don't have to demonstrate that the Nuremberg judges were right.

Is the Roberto now saying that the responsibility for Soap Libel can be lain at the feet of the Nuremberg judges?

Did they give us any authoritative remonstrations about our "Human Soap evidence" here?

Curious, since no one was charged with the "crime" of making Human Soap; it was just part of the litany of shotgun charges thrown at "the Nazis."

I want to Believe.

[Charles Bunch]

[

quote="Scott Smith"]

While his opponents provide solid arguments, Smith has nothing other than the same old beaten bullshit to offer.

We're waiting for you or Chuck to produce the text, in toto, of the alleged affidavits of Neely and Witton to see if they support Mazur.

That's what we're doin'.

Who is "we", Mr. Smith ?

Is it "we 'Revisionist' hollow-heads", this time ?

As I see it, you are the ones who make a fuss about the assessment of Neely's and Witton's affidavits by the IMT and by historians.

No, you are claiming that the Holy Soap is real, or at least Chuck is.

We're claiming that evidence exists sufficient to say that the manufacture of soap from human fat occurred at Danzig. You either have to offer an alternative explanation for the evidence - the tesimony of three men, including a Nazi employee - or deny it. You can't do the former, and in your efforts to avoid overtly denying the evidence, you've made a number of ridiculous and erroneous attacks on them, abandoning one as soon as it has been exposed. You have to explain this evidence, and you can't.

Chuck provided us with a kitchen soap recipe claimed by the Soviets at Nuremberg to have been found at the DAI (without substantiation), and claimed (again without substantiation) to be a recipe for Human Soap.

Notice the continued use of loaded terms to obscure evidence he for some reason doesn't dare attack directly. That's because he knows it is his burden of proof and he can't take on that burden.

But what makes the soap recipe a "kitchen recipe"? Why was a "kitchen recipe" in an Anatomical Institute, where, coincidentally enough, human corpses are stripped of all fat and muscle to produce skeletons for scientific research?

As for substantiation, Mazur substantiates that the recipe presented at the trial was the one Spanner gave him at the institute, and that the fat ingredient called for in the recipe was accomodated by using human fat. Deniers like to pretend that evidence exists independently and without context. That's the origins of the brain dead theme: "One single proof"!


Does anyone need any more evidence that Smith is not a skeptic, but a run of the mill denier who will try a dozen gambits in just one day in order to dismiss evidence of Nazi atrocities?

[Roberto]

Sorry, Chuck, I cannot read a closed book! We need to see the Neely and Witton texts, in toto.

If you feel that need, Smith, go get them.

That would be a much better show than defending yourself with claws and teeth against doing what is your encumbrance.

As I said, it's your turn, Chap. A good project for Chuck since it's his baby.

Smith keeps running away from what a “Revisionist” dreads most, providing evidence in support of his contentions.

OK, so be it.

The audience may judge just how often Smith has properly backed up his assertions, and how often I have failed to properly back up mine.

Smith’s behavior is true to the manual, of course:

1. Creamed Mush with Fog Sauce -- Never provide evidence for your assertions. In fact, respond to demands for evidence the way Dracula responds to crucifixes. Do anything you can to avoid it. Throw insults. Change the subject. Obfuscate. Laugh derisively. Claim you already gave the evidence or that someone else did. But never provide any evidence yourself (unless you provide an incomplete or incomprehensible citation along with it).

Source of quote:

How To Be A Revisionist Scholar, by Michael Philips

http://www.einsatzgruppenarchives.com/revisionism.html

[Roberto]

Whether you like it or not, I don't have to demonstrate that the Nuremberg judges were right.

[Is the Roberto now saying that the responsibility for Soap Libel can be lain at the feet of the Nuremberg judges?

No, I'm saying they drew a conclusion based on evidence that must be considered correct until proven wrong.

What is it that Smith calls "Soap Libel", by the way?

Even if the conclusion that an SS physician attempted to make soap out of human fat at an anatomical institute were dead wrong, it would be less libelous of a regime that murdered millions of people than the accusation of sniffing coke once in a while would be libelous of a Colombian drug lord.

Did they give us any authoritative remonstrations about our "Human Soap evidence" here?

What's that supposed to mean?

What is it that Smith would consider "authoritative remonstrations" ?

A written conclusion and a record of the evidence on which it was based are authoritative enough for the purposes of criminal justice and historiography, whether Smith likes it or not.

Curious, since no one was charged with the "crime" of making Human Soap; it was just part of the litany of shotgun charges thrown at "the Nazis."

Why, and I thought it was part of the evidence to the massive abuse and murder of human beings called "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" that a number of individual defendants were accused and partially convicted of having participated in.

I want to Believe.

I know you do, Smith. But on this forum you're not dealing with fellow believers, but with people you must convince through evidence and arguments.

[David Thompson]

Scott -- You say: "The burden-of-proof is therefore on the claimant." As I understand your posts, you are saying that the "soap story" is false. That makes you the claimant, and puts the burden of proof on you.

Your statement, "I do not have to prove a claim false that is not proved true on the basis of reliable evidence," does not help you out in meeting your burden of proof. This is easy to show. If we reverse your statement, it reads like this: "I do not have to prove a claim (the "soap story") true that is not proved false (by you and Erik) on the basis of reliable evidence (of which there has been none to date)."

The fact that a proposition is unproven does not establish that it is true, nor does it establish that it is false.

[Charles Bunch]

While his opponents provide solid arguments, Smith has nothing other than the same old beaten bullshit to offer.

We're waiting for you or Chuck to produce the text, in toto, of the alleged affidavits of Neely and Witton to see if they support Mazur.

The pertinent texts in support of Mazur have been presented.

If you wish to claim the tribunal hide additional evidence in the affidavits which undoes the pertinent sections presented to the court, while the defendents attornies sat on their thumbs saying nothing, that's your desperate claim to support. More mindless denial of evidence from Smith.

Sorry, Chuck, I cannot read a closed book! We need to see the Neely and Witton texts, in toto.

No, you do, because you have made an unsupported claim. You know as well as I do that you are desperate to deny evidence. That's what deniers do! If we were to deny historical events for which we had not seen every word of every document, you might be happy, but sane people would object.

So, either you offer an alternative scenario for the evidence, or present evidence calling it into question.

Otherwise we only have your desire to disbelieve.

[Scott Smith]

I need no "evidence to rebut a presumption" here unless it is presumed that the Human Soap MUST be real because it contains a good story about the Nazis.

The presumption we would have here, if it were only that, would be that the conclusions of criminal justice authorities and historians about the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, based on three independent eyewitness depositions and supporting physical and documentary evidence, were correct.

What conclusions? Nobody was charged with the "crime" of making Human Soap.

A presumption is always negative without proof offered, particularly if contested.

That’s a good one.

It would mean, for instance, that presumption of innocence benefiting the defendant at a criminal trial is negative without proof offered, particularly if contested.

No, silly. It would mean that the State's claim that the defendant is guilty would be negative (i.e., he is innocent) unless proved true.

The burden-of-proof is therefore on the claimant.

That would be the defendant, in the above example.

No, it would be the State. Nobody has been found guilty here, Counsellor. In fact, nobody was even charged. Herr Professor, Doktor Spanner was questioned by the Bundestablishment some time later but not charged. I don't think the IMT even questioned him. Curious.

Which would mean that Smith’s genius has just turned the principle in dubio pro reo into its opposite.

Nice try, Counsellor, but Chuck needs a LOT more help than that.

I do not have to prove a claim false that is not proved true on the basis of reliable evidence.

Sure, but here the “claim” has been proved by evidence that criminal justice authorities and historians considered reliable, which creates at least a presumption in favor of the reliability of such evidence that he who challenges it must refute.

Sorry, but all they did was receive some affidavits and whatnot from the Soviets. Nobody weighed anything. Remember the London Agreement of 1945 gives the IMT the authority from the Victors to admit any bullshit into evidence that looks good against the Nazis. Here we have shotgun charges and not even any defendant! Alice in Wonderland!

If anything passed as evidence then anything would be true.

Sworn affidavits and photographs are not “anything” by the standards of historiography and criminal justice, but acknowledged and important sources of proof.

That all depends. So far the Believers have yet to offer more than a claim of substantiation for Mazur's sorry story.

They lose that quality when it is demonstrated that they suffer from serious flaws, namely lack of authenticity or credibility.

That has already been demonstrated unless Mazur's specific stories are independently corroborated. More Soap Libel simply will not do without some convergent-details.

But it is up to him who alleges such flaws to demonstrate that they exist.

I already have. Mazur's story needs something passing for corroboration, not just a claim of corroboration in Neely and Witton, i.e., more "affidavits" tossed into the hat by the Soviets without critical examination.

You can start with the text of Neely and Witton. So far you just have Mazur's story as given to the Soviets and presented to the IMT in an affidavit--and without cross-examination or scrutiny of any kind other than the court supposedly also getting affidavits from Neely and Witton that nobody wants to publish online in toto for some reason.

Pretty simple, really.

[Charles Bunch]

Mr Bunch wrote:

Erik wrote:
The evidence to the Soap libel have too close resemblance to the evidence to the gas chamber allegations.

Why don't you tell us about the resemblance?

Congratulations for finally making a definitive statement!

Thanks!

You have probably already read the similar exhortations expressed earlier by Roberto?

How about telling us in a concise and intelligible manner what exactly you think is wrong with the evidence or assessments of evidence that don't fit into your moronic dreamworld ?

(sic)

Then you bring me into a quandary (“practical dilemma”) again, as you are wont to do.

You are inviting me to the “Is-too/is-not” racket, fun for the con-man, less so for the less confident.

But let’s put the “resemblance” like this!

Soap=gas chambers of Treblinka.

How is soap = to gas chambers of Treblinka? Or is everything potentially = in your world?

Photografic evidence of the Soap bar=”map”/model by Franz/Wiernik(?)

There was no photographic evidence of soap, there was soap a photograph of which was taken.

If you bunk photografic evidence of “human” soap from experiments, you can just as well bunk maps and models as evidence of mass murder.

No, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Mazur=Blobel.

Both confessed.

Confessing to murder is hardly the same as Mazur's confession.

If you bunk the confession on soap experiment, you can just as easily bunk the confession of an Enterdungs-Aktion.

One does not follow the other. Debunking one confession says nothing about whether another confession can be debunked, or how easily.

In fact all of your "argument" is of the same fallacious sort.

The fact that one class of evidence in one instance can be shown to be wrong says nothing about the class of evidence as a whole in other instances. If it did we would have no evidence to rely on to prove anything.

That wouldn't be the nihilist game your playing, would it?

[Scott Smith]

So, either you offer an alternative scenario for the evidence, or present evidence calling it into question.

Call what evidence into question? So far there is only Mazur's sensational story about Human Soap and his Mom's laundry, a picture of what the Soviets claim is a jar of Human Soap, and a kitchen recipe for soap claimed by the Soviets to have come from the Danzig Anatomical Institute.

Otherwise we only have your desire to disbelieve.

A reasonable position considering the strikingly malodorous nature of the claims.

[Charles Bunch]

See next post

[Charles Bunch]

So, either you offer an alternative scenario for the evidence, or present evidence calling it into question.

Call what evidence into question?

The evidence you are attempting to deny.

So far there is only Mazur's sensational story about Human Soap and his Mom's laundry, a picture of what the Soviets claim is a jar of Human Soap, and a kitchen recipe for soap claimed by the Soviets to have come from the Danzig Anatomical Institute.

No, there is Mazur's testimony, Wittons testimony, Neely's testimony, a soap recipe identified by Mazur, and the soap, not a photo of the soap. The recipes being from the Institue is corroborated by Mazur, so it is not just claimed by the Soviets.

Do you believe such transparent dishonesty isn't noticed by others who must feel embarrassed for you?

So either give an alternative scenario for the evidence, or offer evidence why it should be ignored.

You won't. You're just a denier who pretends different standards should be applied to evidence which support atrocity activity by the Nazis.

[Scott Smith]

Scott -- You say: "The burden-of-proof is therefore on the claimant." As I understand your posts, you are saying that the "soap story" is false. That makes you the claimant, and puts the burden of proof on you.

No, it is *probably* false because it is a "miraculous" story and it is not proved true.

I am not claiming to have evidence proving the story false.

I am claiming that the so-called evidence fails to prove the claim true.

Your statement, "I do not have to prove a claim false that is not proved true on the basis of reliable evidence," does not help you out in meeting your burden of proof. This is easy to show. If we reverse your statement, it reads like this: "I do not have to prove a claim (the "soap story") true that is not proved false (by you and Erik) on the basis of reliable evidence (of which there has been none to date)."

The Soap Story is FALSE unless it is proved true--just like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or the Great Pumpkin.

The Soap Story is NOT True until it is proved false--just like Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Great Pumpkin.

This is an example of the reification fallacy. A CLAIM is an abstraction unless it is shown to be real; it cannot be "das Ding an sich."

The fact that a proposition is unproven does not establish that it is true, nor does it establish that it is false.

I agree. It is not proved false because it is not proved true--but it is probably false unless it is probably true.

The more reliable evidence we have in favor of the Great Pumpkin the more that he is probably true and the less that he is probably untrue.

[Roberto]

I need no "evidence to rebut a presumption" here unless it is presumed that the Human Soap MUST be real because it contains a good story about the Nazis.

Smith never needs evidence for anything. He has Faith.

The presumption we would have here, if it were only that, would be that the conclusions of criminal justice authorities and historians about the experiments at the Danzig Anatomical Institute, based on three independent eyewitness depositions and supporting physical and documentary evidence, were correct.

What conclusions?

You know very well, for I have quoted them often enough:

After cremation the ashes were used for fertilizer, and in some instances attempts were made to utilise the fat from the bodies of the victims in the commercial manufacture of soap.

Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/p ... ersecution

Nobody was charged with the "crime" of making Human Soap.

So what ?

A presumption is always negative without proof offered, particularly if contested.

That’s a good one.

It would mean, for instance, that presumption of innocence benefiting the defendant at a criminal trial is negative without proof offered, particularly if contested.

No, silly. It would mean that the State's claim that the defendant is guilty would be negative (i.e., he is innocent) unless proved true.

Does the state's claim have the quality of a presumption, you poor jerk?

Is that claim supported by any presumptions?

The burden-of-proof is therefore on the claimant.

That would be the defendant, in the above example.

No, it would be the State. Nobody has been found guilty here, Counsellor. In fact, nobody was even charged. Herr Professor, Doktor Spanner was questioned by the Bundestablishment some time later but not charged. I don't think the IMT even questioned him. Curious.

Running away from your own assertion, Smith?

I can understand that; it was another of your glorious shots in the foot.

As you conveniently changed the subject, what is the relevance of no one having been charged with having made human soap?

How does that invalidate the evidence that such experiments were performed, and the conclusion drawn on the basis of that evidence?

And what does the fact that Spanner was not charged tell us unless we know why he was not charged?

Which would mean that Smith’s genius has just turned the principle in dubio pro reo into its opposite.

Nice try, Counsellor, but Chuck needs a LOT more help than that.

Another of your piss-poor attempts to cover up your lack of arguments, Smith?

I do not have to prove a claim false that is not proved true on the basis of reliable evidence.

Sure, but here the “claim” has been proved by evidence that criminal justice authorities and historians considered reliable, which creates at least a presumption in favor of the reliability of such evidence that he who challenges it must refute.

Sorry, but all they did was receive some affidavits and whatnot from the Soviets.

If so, what would be wrong with that?

But two of the affidavits were made before British and not Soviet criminal justice authorities, as Smith well knows.

Nobody weighed anything.

Is there much weighing to be done when you have three independent and coincident affidavits corroborated by documentary and physical evidence, and the defense challenges none of the evidence ?

Remember the London Agreement of 1945 gives the IMT the authority from the Victors to admit any bullshit into evidence that looks good against the Nazis.

I don't remember any of that. Can Smith show us where in the Charter of the IMT or the Procedural Rules such was written?

Here we have shotgun charges and not even any defendant! Alice in Wonderland!

Why, and I thought that evidence to the abuse of the victims' corpses was part of the evidence to the massive abuse and murder of human beings called "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" that the defendants were accused and partially convicted of having individually participated in.

If anything passed as evidence then anything would be true.

Sworn affidavits and photographs are not “anything” by the standards of historiography and criminal justice, but acknowledged and important sources of proof.

That all depends. So far the Believers have yet to offer more than a claim of substantiation for Mazur's sorry story.

Bullshit.

The Believers (Smith and his sorry ilk) have to demonstrate what is wrong with Mazur's account.

They are not able to do that, hence their howling.

They lose that quality when it is demonstrated that they suffer from serious flaws, namely lack of authenticity or credibility.

That has already been demonstrated

Why, has Smith demonstrated that there are significant inconsistencies in Mazur's deposition, or that there are reasons to doubt the fellow's credibility?

I must have missed something.

unless Mazur's specific stories are independently corroborated.

Well, they happen to be. Mainly by the affidavits of Neely and Witton, as it seems.

More Soap Libel simply will not do without some convergent-details.

Hollow rhetorical baloney.

But it is up to him who alleges such flaws to demonstrate that they exist.

I already have.

Have you? I must have missed something (see above).

Mazur's story needs something passing for corroboration,

Why so?

What indications are there that would give reason to doubt the credibility of the witness or his deposition?

not just a claim of corroboration in Neely and Witton, i.e., more "affidavits" tossed into the hat by the Soviets without critical examination.

The IMT and historians did not exactly accept a "claim of corroboration" without reading the affidavits, did they?

As to their provenance, how could the Soviets possibly have controlled the statements that Neely and Witton made before a British prosecutor?

You can start with the text of Neely and Witton.

I have provided excerpts thereof and quotes from a detailed online assessment available under

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/soap01.html

How about Smith's starting by reading that and telling us what he thinks is wrong with it?

So far you just have Mazur's story as given to the Soviets and presented to the IMT in an affidavit--

What we have, as also becomes apparent from the quoted assessment, is an account by Mazur that coincided with another he provided some time before to an historian not linked to let alone controlled by the Soviets.

And even if we had only Mazur's account given to the Soviets, that alone wouldn't sweep it off the table as evidence without at least an indication that his deposition was in some way influenced by his interrogators.

and without cross-examination

Since when is cross-examination a must to the validity of a testimonial, Smith?

Cross-examination of a witness is a right that the prosecution and defense have.

If they don't make use of it (which usually happens when they consider it conclusive and credible enough), that does not in the least affect the validity of the testimonial as a source of evidence.

or scrutiny of any kind other than the court supposedly also getting affidavits from Neely and Witton that nobody wants to publish online in toto for some reason.

Conspiracy theories, Mr. Smith ?

Tell us, why on earth would the fact that the affidavits, like countless other documents, are not published online, speak against their accuracy, their consistency and the correctness of conclusions based thereon?

How about thinking a little bit before letting such rubbish off your keyboard, Mr. Smith?