Scott Smith wrote:I'll look at it later. I need to go get a couple of hours of sleep just like old times.
Yeah, sure. I'll wait.
Scott Smith wrote:At any rate, why should the Nuremberg and subsequent courts look at scientific evidence when they already had all the "answers," which they called evidence?
Again, what would the relevance of "scientific evidence", whatever that is supposed to mean, have been for establishing the deeds that the defendants were charged with and their guilt ?
Scott Smith wrote:Credible-evidence would include scientific reasoning, verifiable testing and data,
By the standards of what code or principles of evidence, Smith ? Show us.
Scott Smith wrote:and not rely on Nuremberg documents of dubious authenticity
Such as ? I strongly doubt you can show us any document the authenticity of which can reasonably be seen as "dubious", but you're welcome to try.
Scott Smith wrote:
or cherrypicked Survivor/Perpetrator tales.
Tales, my dear boy ?
Or testimonials subject to cross-examination and comparison with other evidence, most of them for the defense ?
[...]In accordance with Articles 16 and 23 of the Charter, Counsel were either chosen by the defendants in custody themselves, or at their request were appointed by the Tribunal. In his absence the Tribunal appointed Counsel for the defendant Bormann, and also assigned Counsel to represent the named groups or organisations.
The Trial which was conducted in four languages -English, Russian, French and German- began on the 20th November, 1945, and pleas of " Not Guilty " were made by all the defendants except Bormann.
The hearing of evidence and the speeches of Counsel concluded on 31st August, 1946.
Four hundred and three open sessions of the Tribunal have been held. Thirty-three witnesses gave evidence orally for the Prosecution against the individual defendants, and 61 witnesses, in addition to 19 of the defendants, gave evidence for the Defence.
A further 143 witnesses gave evidence for the Defence by means of written answers to interrogatories.
The Tribunal appointed Commissioners to hear evidence relating to the organisations, and 101 witnesses were heard for the Defence before the Commissioners, and 1,809 affidavits from other witnesses were submitted. Six reports were also submitted, summarising the contents of a great number of further affidavits.
Thirty-eight thousand affidavits, signed by 155,000 people, were submitted on behalf of the Political Leaders, 136,213 on behalf of the SS, 10,000 on behalf of the SA, 7,000 on behalf of the SD, 3,000 on behalf of the General Staff and OKW, and 2,000 on behalf of the Gestapo.
The Tribunal itself heard 22 witnesses for the organisations. The documents tendered in evidence for the prosecution of the individual defendants and the organisations numbered several thousands. A complete stenographic record of everything said in court has been made, as well as an electrical recording of all the proceedings.
Copies of all the documents put in evidence by the Prosecution have been supplied to the Defence in the German language. The applications made by the defendants for the production of witnesses and documents raised serious problems in some instances, on account of the unsettled state of the country. It was also necessary to limit the number of witnesses to be called, in order to have an expeditious hearing, in accordance with Article 18 (c) of the Charter. The Tribunal, after examination, granted all those applications which in their opinion were relevant to the defence of any defendant or named group or organisation, and were not cumulative. Facilities were provided for obtaining those witnesses and documents granted through the office of the General Secretary established by the Tribunal.
Much of the evidence presented to the Tribunal on behalf of the Prosecution was documentary evidence, captured by the Allied armies in German army headquarters, Government buildings, and elsewhere. Some of the documents were found in salt mines, buried in the ground, hidden behind false walls and in other places thought to be secure from discovery. The case, therefore, against the defendants rests in a large measure on documents of their own making, the authenticity of which has not been challenged except in one or two cases.[...]
From the IMT's judgement. Source of quote:
But this thread wasn't about Nuremberg, was it ?