Anyway, a big reason people trust the judgments made by the judicial system is because people are punished if they lie in their testimony. This is called perjury. Wikipedia defines perjury as "the intentional act of swearing a false oath or falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding."
The reason people are punished for committing crimes is mostly to de-incentivize people from doing it. In this instance, it's designed to make a person afraid to give false testimony in a trial proceeding because there is a chance they would be found out and punished for it.
But what if there was no risk? What if someone that bullied and abused you, cause immense suffering for you and your family was put on trial and you were called as a witness to testify against him. And what if it was made clear that even if you lied you would not be punished for it? Some people, but not all, would take advantage of that situation and not only stretch the truth but make up completely false claims as revenge.
The question is quite simple, has any Jewish eyewitness in a "Holocaust" war crimes trial ever been charged with perjury? I can't think of any examples.
For the witnesses used by the defense, Germar Rudolf writes:
The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust126.96.36.199.2. Witnesses for the Defense
How different, in comparison, is the Courts’ treatment of witnesses for the defense! The most devastating example is that of G. Weise, for whose trial a great number of witnesses for the defense appeared, i.e., were suggested to the Court. However, they were either not summoned by the Court, or their testimony was construed as incriminatory (contrary to its actual content) or simply declared irrelevant on the grounds that only incriminating testimony could clear up the facts of the crime. Anyone who knew nothing of the alleged crime had simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time. In the end Weise was convicted on the basis of one witness for the prosecution, while the more than ten defense witnesses were utterly disregarded. Rieger reports that another Court scornfully dismissed two defense witnesses with the comment that it was a mystery why these witnesses would lie. Burg reports that as defense witness he was regularly threatened and even physically assaulted.
German defense witnesses who were not confined to concentration camps and ghettos at the time in question are on principle treated with distrust by the courts. If they cannot remember the atrocities alleged by witnesses for the prosecution, or if they should even dispute them (which is generally the case), they are declared unreliable and are therefore not sworn in. Prosecutor Grabitz expresses revulsion and loathing for such witnesses, as for the accused who testify in a similar vein and whom she would like nothing better than to slap resoundingly in the face. Rückerl even insinuates perjury, and in fact some witnesses have been prosecuted to this effect. Lichtenstein reports a case where such "ignorant" witnesses were charged en masse with lying and perjury and where threats of arrest, and actual arrests, were repeatedly made. He quotes the judge’s response to one witness who avowed that he was telling the plain and simple truth:
"You will be punished for this truth, I promise you."
In the Auschwitz Trial, witness Bernhard Walter, whose testimony was not to the prosecution’s liking, was placed under arrest until he had revised his statements. It is clear that such actions by the Court cannot but have intimidated witnesses. But Lichtenstein merely fumes that despite all this some witnesses were still so insolent as to continue to deny everything. German defense witnesses for the ‘criminal side’ who were willing to testify for Adolf Eichmann in the Jerusalem trial were always threatened with arrest by the prosecution, so that they stayed away from the proceedings.
Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?
The Trial of Dr. Bruno Tesch