Witness Statistics

[Hannover]

Hans said:

a) There was no death sentence in West-Germany.

b) The defense could have shown that the gassings are a hoax and the prosecution would have to drop a large part of the charge. Disproving gassings would have been a ticket out of the accusations for most defendants and they could have expected a verdict of not guilty.

There were hangings at Nuremberg, the genesis of the 'judicial notice' charade. And a life in prison in post Nuremberg W. Germany was not an attractive option. Of course, Hans ignores the activities in E. Germany.

Wrong, Challenging the bogus 'judicial notice' is also not an option. Must I explain 'judical notice' to you, Hans?

Hans shot himself in the foot with:

The verbatim transcripts of The verbatim transcripts of most sessions of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial are available for some years already. In fact, I did provide the testimonies on homicidal gassings for each witness in my blog article, including the source. You did not read it, I guess.
Even Mattogno has started now to use some of the testimonies in the new editions of his books. So do not tell us the records do not exist or are not available when everybody can buy them for little money:
http://www.amazon.de/Digitale-Bibliothe ... 898535010/ already. In fact, I did provide the testimonies on homicidal gassings for each witness in my blog article, including the source. You did not read it, I guess.
Even Mattogno has started now to use some of the testimonies in the new editions of his books. So do not tell us the records do not exist or are not available when everybody can buy them for little money:
http://www.amazon.de/Digitale-Bibliothe ... 898535010/

For "most sessions"? For "some years"? And why would anyone actually believe they are getting the unadulterated truth from a court system which has been shown repeatedly to engage in manipulation. Hardly convincing, Hans.

No, I did not read your "blog article", why should I or anyone else? You nor your link can provide complete verbatim transcripts for the very trial which you hang your hat on. And there were all the other post Nuremberg trials where no verbatim transcripts are to be found. You ignored that completely.
Mattogno has used what was made available, and what made available was not the complete verbatim transcripts.
And why would partial court transcripts, which 'prove the 'holocaust', be fee based? Another big red flag. Of course that is the true nature of the 'holocaust' scam, money.

And you have been demolished about your belief in the impossible as alleged homicidal gassing in every thread where you dared raise your head. Shall I point them out as I have done before?

You ignored the fact that Germans were universally tortured and threatened in order to get then to say what was deemed necessary. Only with matters of the 'holocaust' are rules of jurisprudence routinely violated. Show Trials indeed.

And Zulu utterly spanked you with the post which included

313,213 affidavits collected for the defense and deliberately ignored by the judges?

I'm afraid you and your ilk have painted yourselves into a corner with this absurd 'gassing confessions statisitics' ploy. As I said, you're dealing in garbage in, garbage out.

I suggest this thread for all, especially Hans:
'Cyanide Chemistry at Auschwitz'
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4111

- Hannover

[Hektor]

...There were hangings at Nuremberg, the genesis of the 'judicial notice' charade. And a life in prison in post Nuremberg W. Germany was not an attractive option. Of course, Hans ignores the activities in E. Germany.
...

And there was the implicit possibility of being handed over to Eastern Block countries for "further processing", also not an attractive option and possibly a death sentence.

It's however worthwhile to have a look at the link Hans posted, especially the further documents one can get in the foot notes. After going going through it briefly one thing stroke me. Most of what I've seen is considered "hearsay", So perhaps Hans can point us to the witnesses that had credible first hand knowledge of homicidal gassings or perhaps the confession of a perpetrator.

[SKcz]

During this trial, they just introduced some randomly chosen alleged witnesses without knowledge of what these witnesses are going to say, or they chosed witnesses with knowledge of what they are going to say? Consider it as challenge of course.

As in any trial, the witnesses were not randomly chosen from the population, but selected from the prosecution and defense to provide testimony on aspects related to the charges against the defendants. There is nothing in the files of the trial which would indicate that the witnesses were screened whether they confirmed or not homicidal gassings and excluded in the latter case, if this is what you are trying to tell us. But even if this were true, it would not explain the huge amount of affirmative testimonies if there were no homicidal gassings in Auschwitz.

When I see the show trials, I am quite sure that they introduced only the suitable witnesses and I really doubt that defense was allowed to introduce witnesses which contradict the story. If this is true then it perfectly explain why witnesses "confirmed" accusations.

Please, explain Neave report mentioned by Zulu.

[jeffersonian]

Has anyone ever taken every person who claims they were a witness to the Holocaust and compiled statistics on them? How many say they saw people killed in gas chambers? How many say they believe people were killed in gas chambers but never saw it? How many say they don't believe anyone was killed in gas chambers?

Would it be more efficient to focus simply on the absurdity of the claims? Just about every claim you can find in newspapers, public talks, and books, has some absurdity about it. It would seem that the entire witness pool is suspect.

[Hektor]

Has anyone ever taken every person who claims they were a witness to the Holocaust and compiled statistics on them? How many say they saw people killed in gas chambers? How many say they believe people were killed in gas chambers but never saw it? How many say they don't believe anyone was killed in gas chambers?

Would it be more efficient to focus simply on the absurdity of the claims? Just about every claim you can find in newspapers, public talks, and books, has some absurdity about it. It would seem that the entire witness pool is suspect.

The question aims more at potential witnesses and less on those that actually claim to be witnesses and then have some story to tell ripe to make a movie or write a book about.