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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Nuremberg - Fair Trial or Show Trial ?
The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust
[Book] Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust—30 Gas-Chamber Witnesses Scrutinized
How Postwar German Authorities Orchestrated Witness Statements in Nazi Crime Cases
Has any Jewish "Holocaust" witnesses been charged with perjury in a war crimes trial?
[Articles] War Crime Trials + Prosecutions