The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust. The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust. Manfred K. Introduction. In the debate about the Holocaust one of the main arguments of popular opinion is that there are a great many statements of eyewitnesses to document the National Socialist mass extermination, and that especially the many confessions of perpetrators among the SS are irrefutable proof of the existence of a program of deliberate extermination of the Jews in the Third Reich. The present work is a compendium of such material evidence, which, however, all goes to refute certain aspects of the Holocaust as these are related by witnesses and maintained accordingly by the courts and by academia. The justice system as well as academics of the establishment ignore this material evidence; nevertheless, the question arises as to how eyewitness testimony is to be evaluated. It is important to note that neither objective historians nor jurists may uncritically accept everything that someone recounts as being the plain truth, but must establish the value of such reports. The first step in this process is to fit eyewitness testimony properly into the hierarchy of the various types of evidence. Then one must consider how the individual testimony came to be – for example, whether there were manipulative factors that may have impinged on the witness and influenced his testimony. Since most of the eyewitness statements concerning the Holocaust were made in the course of preliminary legal proceedings and of trials, we shall first clarify the value accorded to eyewitness testimony in court. The Value of Eyewitness Evidence in General. In academia as well as in the justice system of a state under the rule of law, there is a hierarchy of evidence reflecting the evidential value. In this hierarchy, material and documentary evidence is always superior to eyewitness testimony. The witness must be credible. While making no claims to completeness, the following lists a few criteria for determining credibility: Emotional involvement. If witnesses are emotionally too involved in the cases under investigation, this may distort the testimony in one direction or the other, without this necessarily being a conscious process. 1955 Engle Sallie Bingham . 4 1997 Dark 'Wolves' Prairie Schooner. An eye-witness account of sailors spotting red paint from the Titanic's hull on the iceberg that sank her, along with a photo, have emerged after nearly a century. Veracity. If it turns out that a witness is not overly concerned about truthfulness, this casts doubts upon his further credibility. Testimony under coercion. The frankness of testimony may be limited if a witness is subjected to direct or indirect pressure that makes him deem it advisable to configure his testimony accordingly. Third- party influence. A person’s memory is easy to manipulate. Events reported by acquaintances or in the media can easily become assimilated as . Thus, if a witness has been exposed intensively to one- sided accounts of the trial substance prior to testifying, this can very well affect his testimony to reflect these impressions. Temporal distance from the events to be attested to. It is generally known that the reliability of eyewitness testimony diminishes greatly after only a few days, and after several months has been so severely influenced and altered by the replacement of forgotten details with subsequent impressions that it retains hardly any value as evidence. Testimony must be plausible. Internal consistency. UNITED STATES, (1968) No. Wall, Eye-Witness Identification in Criminal Cases. Williams, Identification Parades, 1955. 1955–65) Daniel Francis McGuire (m. Margaret Keane turned down various offers for the film rights. 277, Oct., 1955 The English Historical Review. An Eye-Witness's Account of the Coup d'. Testimony must be free of contradictions and in accordance with the rules of logic. Correctness of historical context. Testimony must fit into the historical context established conclusively by higher forms of evidence (documents, material evidence). Technical and scientific reality. Testimony must report such matters as can be reconciled with the laws of nature and with what was technically possible at the time in question. While the issues listed under 2. One must keep in mind that every witness experienced a certain event differently, from a purely subjective and personal point of view. He or she internalized it differently, depending on his/her physical and psychological state. He/she will ultimately recount the experience in a strictly subjective manner depending on his/her abilities and on the occasion at hand. So even if two witnesses are completely impartial and credible and their statements are plausible, they nevertheless may not report the same thing. False confessions may be made in order tocover for a third party; bask in the limelight of a crime; put a stop to grueling interrogation; gain a mitigated sentence by exhibiting remorse and repentance; as a result of psychological disorders; etc. It is all the more surprising, therefore, that the otherwise knowledgeable R. Bender would categorize a self- incriminating witness as being generally truthful. Stop by the Virginia Cafe for some of the best downtown Portland happy hour deals. A classic Portland Oregon restaurant & bar, the Virginia Cafe is a Portland cafe. Monthly Weather Review, vol. An eye witness account of the. The Value of Testimony and Confessions Concerning the Holocaust. Add a Plot » Directors: Allan Wargon, Ronald Weyman. Fall TV Guide 'This Is Us. Forms of Evidence in Holocaust Studies. Material and Documentary Evidence. In orthodox Holocaust studies material evidence is practically nonexistent: To date, not a single mass grave has been searched for, found, exhumed or examined relative to this subject complex. On this point our contemporary historians exhibit the same aversion to detailed document criticism. After all, document criticism is nothing more nor less than the expert assessment of a document. In other words, it is the furnishing of material evidence regarding the authenticity and factual correctness of a document. Eyewitness Evidence in the Orthodox View of the Holocaust. Media Statements as Evidence for Historiography? Part of the testimony or statements regarding the Holocaust came in the form of written declarations or, more recently, as radio and television programs. In both cases it is easy to assess these statements in terms of the points listed under 2, but there is usually no opportunity to speak with the witness personally in order to learn more details and to establish his credibility and the plausibility of his testimony, for example by means of cross- examination. Critiques of the statements published in the various media are both numerous and extensive. But these paper- and celluloid- witnesses can only be accorded evidential value once their statements have stood up to critical examination. In the following chapter, Robert Faurisson reports about the first two of such a critical examination of this kind of witness to date. In this section, therefore, we will focus primarily on statements made in court, particularly since the supposed justness of the German justice system prompts the public to accord these a greater significance. Court Testimony as Evidence for Historiography? The very critical view, at least theoretically, taken by courts of witness and party testimony is based on the understanding of human nature gained in the course of centuries by many jurists. It should be accepted as a valid guideline by historians as well, even if the methods used to determine truth in scientific pursuits are necessarily different than those employed in court. For example, while a Court must reach an absolute decision regarding what is true and what is false, and must do so within a limited period of time, science cannot, indeed may not reach a conclusive and final verdict if it wants to remain true to its maxim of openness in every respect. Whereas in a court case the close relation of the proceedings to a human fate causes emotion to exert a strong and distorting influence on the process by which the verdict is reached, this influence usually is, or should be, minor in scientific pursuits. When we discuss in the following the witness testimony and confessions that represent almost the entirety of the foundation on which the structure of the Holocaust rests, we must bear in mind that for the most part these statements were made in the course of trials or at least for the purpose of incriminating or exonerating someone before a court or the public. Practically no eyewitness accounts exist that were made outside a courtroom situation and free of emotion. The subject matter itself and the emotions with which it is charged have seen to that. The truth of testimony and confessions must therefore be carefully examined before the court by qualified experts – something that regularly does not happen in the so- called . It is already a very questionable procedure to try to . The procedure becomes all the more suspect when those who . But then it is all the more important for this science to consider the circumstances under which these statements came about, for their value depends not least of all on how fairly the prosecution, the defense and the Court, but also the media and the general public were disposed towards the witnesses and the accused. An Expert Opinion about the Value of Testimony Regarding the Holocaust. There is currently no topic of human history that is treated more emotionally and one- sidedly in public than the Holocaust. It represents the central taboo of western civilization, and to question it is the epitome of heresy, and punishable by imprisonment in many western democracies. Given this state of affairs, the expert on the evaluation of eyewitness testimony, Professor Elisabeth Loftus, pointed out in 1. National Socialist atrocities, witnessed in a particularly high stage of emotion, is less reliable than almost any other testimony. Elaborating, she observes: The time elapsed since the end of World War II has contributed to an inevitable fading of recollections. In trials of alleged National Socialist criminals pre- trial publicity has meant that witnesses had generally known the identity of the defendants and the crimes they were charged with already before the trial. Prosecutors have asked witnesses leading questions, such as whether they could recognize the accused as the perpetrator. Witnesses have rarely been called on to identify the accused from a number of unknown people. It is fairly certain that witnesses have discussed identifications among themselves, which facilitated subsequent . They were allegedly responsible for the murder of the witnesses’ mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, wives and children. Oct., 1. 95. 5 of The English Historical Review on JSTORDescription: Tables of contents for recent issues of The English Historical Review are. It. deals not only with British history, but with almost all aspects of European. It covers the history of the Americas. USA and her role in the wider world (but. USA since Independence). With contributions. EHR includes major articles, notes. September issue each year. The English Historical Review appears in February, April, June. September, and November each year, and with 2. Coverage: 1. 88. 6- 2.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |