Court procedure witnesses

Forensic analysis is usually required for the collection of data in the course of determining whether legislation has been infringed. The customer requires that, above all, there is an unbroken chain of evidence from the time the samples were taken to the presentation of evidence in courts of law. In the laboratory this will include documentation and authorization for sample receipt, sample transfer, sub-sampling, laboratory notebooks, analytical procedures, calculations and observations, witness statements and sample disposal. All of these aspects can be called as evidence in court. 

The procedures of mass-gassing as attested to by witnesses during their interrogation before various courts of law, as cited in judicial rulings, and as described in scientific and literary publications, in any building of Auschwitz whatever, are inconsistent with documentary evidence, technical necessities, and natural scientific law. 

There used to be a crime that was considered to be worse than any other it was known as crimen atrox (atrocious crime). According to witness testimony this included the most horrific abuses and ways of murdering people and animals that the human mind can conceive of, and even included harm to and destruction of the environment. Not only was such a crime prosecuted directly by the public prosecutor as soon as it became known - the courts were even instructed not to observe the normal rules of procedure, since these were satanic crimes that could not be dealt with in the ordinary way. Even death could not keep the victims from being persecuted their bodies were simply exhumed without much ado. 

In any normal trial the defense could and should have intervened here, but in light of the scenario of hate that had been tolerated and even partly contributed to by the Court, the defense in the Wuppertal trial saw no purpose in doing so. In order to avoid providing even further material for all the advance preparation and choreographing of the witnesses for the prosecution (in flagrant violation of all rules of procedure, by the way), the defense counsel had advised the defendant to refrain from making any statements of his own. After the verdict had been handed down, the press twisted this accordingly ... 

The Wuppertal Court consistently downgraded Motions to hear evidence, submitted by the defense, to the level of Motions to obtain evidence, only to reject them.20 In the first Order for Exemption From Imprisonment, however, the Provincial Fligh Court and Court of Appeal in Diisseldorf had stated that in its view all potential witnesses should be heard, since the difficulty involved in establishing the truth after such a long time warranted this.21 This is most remarkable, as it is not the usual procedure for another court to attend to matters of ascertaining facts on principle, this is the sole task of the Court responsible for the trial. The Provincial Fligh Court and Court of Appeal in Diisseldorf reinforced its opinion by granting Weise renewed exemption from imprisonment after the Wuppertal verdict. 

---