Well, that's why we don't allow sophomore history students, or drug-store lawyers, to practice law. First of all Porter cites US law. There is no reason to assume these international trials should have been carried out under US law. But more specifically, and as I indicated to you before, there are a whole series of hearsay exception rules to be found in US criminal procedure, so the admission of a document such as Mazur's is not necessarily hearsay.Porter makes some excellent points that I tried to make earlier in this discussion on evidence and hearsay:
Excellent point, Mr. Porter! Even this "drug-store lawyer" knows that and every sophomore History student should be aware of it as well.Carlos Porter wrote: COMMENT: Hearsay is an “out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter stated” (Definition: CRIMINAL LAW ADVOCACY, Matthew Bender Publishers, NY). Hearsay achieves no added dignity by being written down.
Of course, even if it was, that would say nothing about its value as an historical document.
And Porter continues (emphases mine)...When Porter declares a document a forgery, it is his responsibility to provide evidence for the claim.Carlos Porter wrote: COMMENT: That is not true. It is the responsibility of the prosecution in a criminal trial to prove the authenticity of the documents which it introduces into evidence. Is it not my responsibility to prove that everything is a forgery. What is the value of “evidence” introduced in a “trial” in which something like USSR-197 or USSR-470 or R-135 could even be considered? What is the value of a “trial” in which such “evidence” could be considered? [Emphasis mine.]
They are not necessarily hearsay, affidavits are always prepared and typed by someone else, and provided witnesses attest to the witness having made the statement there is nothing wrong with it.Carlos Porter wrote: All 3 “human soap” statements -- Mazur, Neely, and Witton -- are written hearsay, in addition to which, the Mazur statement is not even signed by Mazur! All signatures by Mazur are typewritten.
Neely and Witton prepared corpses for dissection in an anatomical institute (a perfectly normal non-criminal function) and had nothing -- I repeat , NOTHING -- to do with the preparation of any “human soap”. They stated that they were TOLD that the fat removed from the corpses was turned into soap, and were furthermore TOLD that the soap was EXCELLENT for the purpose.
Has Porter posted the Neely and Witton affidavits to support his claims about what they say?