Criminal Justice Institute guide on Witness Testimony & Credibility

Read and post various viewpoints or search our large archives.

Moderator: Moderator

Forum rules
Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1248
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Criminal Justice Institute guide on Witness Testimony & Credibility

Postby Lamprecht » 1 month 3 days ago (Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:15 pm)

Image

The following document I will be posting is a short guide on assessing the validity of witness testimony. I believe that it is something that is edited a little (some sections are added/omitted depending on the case) and printed out to be given to juries in criminal cases. It is just a very simple guide that a regular person can use to help determine if a witness's testimony is credible.

In ordinary criminal cases, it is also the job of the attorneys and judges to cross examine the witnesses who swear an oath of honestly, and can be charged with a crime if they are found to have lied. Whether or not the statements of an individual that was not subjected to this process can actually be considered "Eyewitness testimony" in the legal sense is another matter altogether. The testimonies that we deal with on the subject of the "Holocaust" were mostly given over a half a century ago, so we can only use what we are provided.

In any case, I think this short guide can be quite useful when we are reading testimonies of people claiming to have witnessed certain atrocities committed by Germans during World War II. Keep in mind, this guide is for court cases in which guilt or innocence must be determined in a limited time frame. When it comes to the historical process, we are not constrained by these same factors.

The main source is here: https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/cji/1-G ... jigc.shtml
The specific document is here: https://archive.is/SPGvb
(note: I have omitted the citations because they were mostly just references to court cases)
Credibility of Witnesses

As judges of the facts, you alone determine the truthfulness and accuracy of the testimony of each witness. You must decide whether a witness told the truth and was accurate, or instead, testified falsely or was mistaken. You must also decide what importance to give to the testimony you accept as truthful and accurate. It is the quality of the testimony that is controlling, not the number of witnesses who testify.1

Accept in Whole or in Part (Falsus in Uno)

If you find that any witness has intentionally testified falsely as to any material fact, you may disregard that witness's entire testimony. Or, you may disregard so much of it as you find was untruthful, and accept so much of it as you find to have been truthful and accurate.2

Credibility factors

There is no particular formula for evaluating the truthfulness and accuracy of another person's statements or testimony. You bring to this process all of your varied experiences. In life, you frequently decide the truthfulness and accuracy of statements made to you by other people. The same factors used to make those decisions, should be used in this case when evaluating the testimony.

In General

Some of the factors that you may wish to consider in evaluating the testimony of a witness are as follows: Did the witness have an opportunity to see or hear the events about which he or she testified?

Did the witness have the ability to recall those events accurately?

Was the testimony of the witness plausible and likely to be true, or was it implausible and not likely to be true?

Was the testimony of the witness consistent or inconsistent with other testimony or evidence in the case?

Did the manner in which the witness testified reflect upon the truthfulness of that witness's testimony?

To what extent, if any, did the witness's background, training, education, or experience affect the believability of that witness's testimony?

Did the witness have a bias, hostility or some other attitude that affected the truthfulness of the witness's testimony?3

Motive

You may consider whether a witness had, or did not have, a motive to lie.

If a witness had a motive to lie, you may consider whether and to what extent, if any, that motive affected the truthfulness of that witness's testimony.

If a witness did not have a motive to lie, you may consider that as well in evaluating the witness's truthfulness.4

Benefit

You may consider whether a witness hopes for or expects to receive a benefit for testifying. If so, you may consider whether and to what extent it affected the truthfulness of the witness's testimony.5

Interest/Lack of Interest 6

You may consider whether a witness has any interest in the outcome of the case, or instead, whether the witness has no such interest.

A defendant who testifies is a person who has an interest in the outcome of the case.

You are not required to reject the testimony of an interested witness, or to accept the testimony of a witness who has no interest in the outcome of the case.

You may, however, consider whether an interest in the outcome, or the lack of such interest, affected the truthfulness of the witness's testimony.

Previous Criminal Conduct7

You may consider whether a witness has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in criminal conduct, and if so, whether and to what extent it affects the truthfulness of that witness's testimony.

You are not required to reject the testimony of a witness who has been convicted of a crime or has engaged in criminal conduct, or to accept the testimony of a witness who has not.

You may, however, consider whether a witness's criminal conviction or conduct has affected the truthfulness of the witness's testimony.

Inconsistent Statements8

You may consider whether a witness made statements at this trial that are inconsistent with each other. You may also consider whether a witness made previous statements that are inconsistent with his or her testimony at trial.

You may consider whether a witness testified to a fact here at trial that the witness omitted to state, at a prior time, when it would have been reasonable and logical for the witness to have stated the fact. In determining whether it would have been reasonable and logical for the witness to have stated the omitted fact, you may consider whether the witness' attention was called to the matter and whether the witness was specifically asked about it. 9

If a witness has made such inconsistent statements [or omissions], you may consider whether and to what extent they affect the truthfulness or accuracy of that witness's testimony here at this trial.

The contents of a prior inconsistent statement are not proof of what happened. You may use evidence of a prior inconsistent statement only to evaluate the truthfulness or accuracy of the witness's testimony here at trial.10

Consistency

You may consider whether a witness's testimony is consistent with the testimony of other witnesses or with other evidence in the case.

If there were inconsistencies by or among witnesses, you may consider whether they were significant inconsistencies related to important facts, or instead were the kind of minor inconsistencies that one might expect from multiple witnesses to the same event?

Witness Pre-trial Preparation12

You have heard testimony about (specify: the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and/or investigator) speaking to a witness about the case before the witness testified at this trial. The law permits a (specify) to speak to a witness about the case before the witness testifies, and permits a (specify) to review with the witness the questions that will or may be asked at trial, including the questions that may be asked on cross-examination.13

You have also heard testimony that a witness read or reviewed certain materials pertaining to this case before the witness testified at trial. The law permits a witness to do so.

Speaking to a witness about his or her testimony and permitting the witness to review materials pertaining to the case before the witness testifies is a normal part of preparing for trial. It is not improper as long as it is not suggested that the witness depart from the truth.

Sometime soon, I will post some additional thoughts on this subject, in reference to the "Holocaust" story. Doubtless, anyone who reads this guide can see exactly why they should be especially skeptical of so-called "Holocaust" eyewitnesses, due to the unique nature of the event.
I would also like to take the chance to emphasize that eyewitness testimony is only circumstantial evidence, and is in the hierarchy of evidence considered less conclusive than documents, which are less conclusive than physical evidence. And when it comes to testimony in a criminal case, statements from the aggrieved party should be met with the most skepticism due to their involvement in the case.



Suggested reading:

Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?
viewtopic.php?t=11053

The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
https://codoh.com/library/document/932/

[Book] Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust—30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized
viewtopic.php?t=12621

How Postwar German Authorities Orchestrated Witness Statements in Nazi Crime Cases
https://codoh.com/library/document/3432/

Has any Jewish "Holocaust" witnesses been charged with perjury in a war crimes trial?
viewtopic.php?t=12762

[Articles] War Crime Trials + Prosecutions
https://codoh.com/library/categories/1012/
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

Pon
Member
Member
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:09 am

Re: Criminal Justice Institute guide on Witness Testimony & Credibility

Postby Pon » 3 days 8 hours ago (Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:57 pm)

Just giving a "heads up". I haven't vanished. I have collected a lot of information through various sources, in order to actually be able to answer the various responds that I've got and not simulatiously having to sacrifice my entire social life, I need to take more time to collect materials (I'm also evaluating responses from a linguistic forum concerning the wire-net insertion device). I do realise that there was much more concerns about the validity of the holocaust than I first thought. I do think that that concern is a amateurish view though, I realise that profound statements on either side can be met on equal terms. The witnesses and documents are enough to prove the holocaust is real, but not necessarily enough to prove the gassings are real at this state of the matter. I will however try to bridge that gap (that is a gap of knowledge simply, perhaps on my side, perhaps also on yours).

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9891
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Criminal Justice Institute guide on Witness Testimony & Credibility

Postby Hannover » 3 days 8 hours ago (Fri Nov 08, 2019 1:24 pm)

Pon wrote:Just giving a "heads up". I haven't vanished. I have collected a lot of information through various sources, in order to actually be able to answer the various responds that I've got and not simulatiously having to sacrifice my entire social life, I need to take more time to collect materials (I'm also evaluating responses from a linguistic forum concerning the wire-net insertion device). I do realise that there was much more concerns about the validity of the holocaust than I first thought. I do think that that concern is a amateurish view though, I realise that profound statements on either side can be met on equal terms. The witnesses and documents are enough to prove the holocaust is real, but not necessarily enough to prove the gassings are real at this state of the matter. I will however try to bridge that gap (that is a gap of knowledge simply, perhaps on my side, perhaps also on yours).

- So "amateurish" yet you cannot refute Revisionist research.

- What "witnesses and documents"? Heretofore you have failed utterly to present any that can pass rational, scientific scrutiny.

- Still waiting for you to show us the claimed enormous human remains of many millions which are claimed to exist in known locations.

Please start separate threads on anything which you think supports your position. Of course, it's more than likely there are already threads on those points which you could post to. Either way, let's go.

- Hannover

No alleged human remains of millions upon millions to be seen in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.

User avatar
HMSendeavour
Member
Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Criminal Justice Institute guide on Witness Testimony & Credibility

Postby HMSendeavour » 3 days 6 hours ago (Fri Nov 08, 2019 2:56 pm)

Pon wrote:The witnesses and documents are enough to prove the holocaust is real, but not necessarily enough to prove the gassings are real at this state of the matter.


No buddy. "Documents" and Witnesses DO NOT prove the guilt or act of a crime. Anyone can have any such document made and eyewitnesses to 'verify' the veracity of a document but that doesn't make an event suddenly real. How low do you exterminationists have to stoop in order to make peace in your own mind that despite it ALL the Holocaust JUST HAS to be real? I honestly can't think of a worse source of evidence that you'd people scramble to verify as 'credible' to mock you people with because you've already hedged your bets on 'eyewitnesses', the most unreliable source of all for very obvious reasons.

Your concession on the gassings is quite telling though. But seriously, what could YOU do that the mainstream cannot do? And if it's so easy why haven't they done it? You can't and neither can they. We'll await your postings of documents long refuted and arguments misrepresented. The last bloke on this forum who thought he could refute the Revisionists left in a matter of hours.

See: The Ballad of Nit Wyit Wyatt:

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12715

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12164&p=93715#p93715

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12725&p=93755#p93755

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12721&p=93761#p93761

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12720

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12722&p=93760#p93724

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12723

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12724

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10413

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12727

https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12724
Now what does it mean for the independent expert witness Van Pelt? In his eyes he had two possibilities. Either to confirm the Holocaust story, or to go insane. - Germar Rudolf, 13th IHR Conference

User avatar
Lamprecht
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 1248
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Criminal Justice Institute guide on Witness Testimony & Credibility

Postby Lamprecht » 3 days 2 hours ago (Fri Nov 08, 2019 6:51 pm)

Pon wrote:Just giving a "heads up". I haven't vanished. I have collected a lot of information through various sources, in order to actually be able to answer the various responds that I've got and not simulatiously having to sacrifice my entire social life, I need to take more time to collect materials (I'm also evaluating responses from a linguistic forum concerning the wire-net insertion device). I do realise that there was much more concerns about the validity of the holocaust than I first thought. I do think that that concern is a amateurish view though, I realise that profound statements on either side can be met on equal terms.

Good stuff Pon. We hope you continue debating. Maybe bring your friends along :D

The witnesses and documents are enough to prove the holocaust is real, but not necessarily enough to prove the gassings are real at this state of the matter.

That depends what you mean by "Holocaust". I would suggest you review the following image:

Image

I will however try to bridge that gap (that is a gap of knowledge simply, perhaps on my side, perhaps also on yours).

Pon, there are far more "Eyewitness testimonies" for Bigfoot, alien abductions, ghosts and witchcraft than homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz. If it couldn't have happened as alleged, it didn't.
For me, the technical arguments are important. It's easy for anyone to say anything. If I tried hard enough I could find 10 people to claim to have been eyewitnesses to YOU killing people in gas chambers. It's not a hard thing to do, especially for a government/military.
"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principal is contempt prior to investigation."
-- Herbert Spencer

User avatar
Hannover
Valuable asset
Valuable asset
Posts: 9891
Joined: Sun Nov 24, 2002 7:53 pm

Re: Criminal Justice Institute guide on Witness Testimony & Credibility

Postby Hannover » 3 days 2 hours ago (Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:02 pm)

Pon is asking the classic question:

'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?'

When in fact there are no angels.

Quite simply, If something cannot happen as alleged then it did not happen as alleged.

- Hannover

No alleged human remains of millions upon millions to be seen in allegedly known locations, no 'holocaust'.
If it can't happen as alleged, then it didn't.


Return to “'Holocaust' Debate / Controversies / Comments / News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Callahan, MSN [Bot] and 6 guests