Eyewitness Testimonies

Historically, physical evidence has taken on increasing importance in criminal matters. Court decisions have consistentiy looked askance at a defendant s admissions of guilt and even question eyewitness testimony. Physical evidence has traditionally been viewed as impartial and unbiased, and not subject to the problems associated with confessions made by an accused or the testimony of witnesses. 

Hence, forensic research is exactly what revisionists, starting with Robert Faurisson, have called the search for material evidence. The revisionists demand for such material evidence is entirely consistent with the normal practice of modem law enforcement. Also, as is generally acknowledged, forensic evidence is more conclusive than eyewitness testimony or documentary evidence. 

The court lacked almost all possibilities of discovery available in a normal murder trial to create a true picture of the actual event at the time of the murder. It lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records, expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death it lacked any trace of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness testimony was only possible in rare cases. Where the slightest doubt existed or the possibility of a confusion could not be excluded with certainty, the court did not evaluate the testimony of witnesses [...] ... 

Figure 56 shows the ground plan of crematorium IV and mirror-symmetrically that of crematorium V.276 Based on cost considerations, these buildings, planned and begun later, were constructed in a simpler manner than crematoria II and III. Due to low quality materials, the crematorium ovens of both crematoria broke down shortly after the putting into operation of the installation. They were not repaired due to crematorium over-capacity. There are few documents as well as contradictory and, to some extent, incredible eyewitness testimonies relating to these installations, which, according to Pressac, must be considered the least well-known 277... 

This chapter will examine a few related eyewitness testimonies for a determination of the chemical, physical, and technical boundary conditions of the alleged homicidal gassings. A complete and detailed analysis of the many eyewitness testimonies in the individual trials and... 

What is the credibility of the eyewitness testimonies as to content Reference should be made at this point to a few detailed works on this problem.437 The following is a closer examination of three of the more frequently quoted eyewitnesses Rudolf Hob, former camp commandant at Auschwitz, Richard Bock, a camp SS man of subordinate rank, as well as Henryk Tauber, former inmate and member of the Sonder-kommando in crematorium II in Birkenau. 

Another commonly quoted witness is Henryk Tauber. Tauber was, according to his own testimony, a member of the inmate Sonderkom-mando of crematorium II during the war. J.-C. Pressac writes that this eyewitness testimony is the best in relation to the crematoria, which he considers to be 95% reliable. This testimony contains the following 443... 

One thousand people occupy a surface area of at least 200 m2. According to eyewitness testimonies, the farmhouses had only half this much surface area, at the most.450... 

I enclose a copy of the eyewitness testimonies offormer members of the SS on the gassing of inmates at Auschwitz. .. for your information. They are only a selection—there are numerous other such testimonies. In contrast to yourself I am of the opinion that these eyewitness testimonies relating to the fact of the occurrence of gassings of human beings, are entirely suitable to refute the denial of this fact. 

Pressac himself becomes very critical in quite a few of his passages relating to the reliability and credibility of eyewitness testimonies 452 yet it is upon these eyewitness testimonies that all the descriptions of the gas chamber killings are based. He lists the untruths, impossibilities, and exaggerations of the witnesses and explains how they presumably materialized. Finally, in an interview, he said 453... 

No, no. One cannot write serious history based only upon eyewitness testimonies. ... 

At the same time, however, he bases all of his remarks on the alleged existence of homicidal gas chambers exclusively on these eyewitness testimonies And elsewhere, he states, with a naivete which can hardly be surpassed 454... 

The eyewitness testimonies relating to the alleged cremation of the bodies, finally, are riddled with fantasy cremation in deep ditches cremation with liquid fuels entirely without—or with ridiculously little—fuel the destruction of corpses with explosives the collection of human fat. These have nothing in common with technical reality or possibility, and are largely refuted by the Allied aerial photographic evidence no huge ditches, no smoke, no fire, no fuel storage areas. 

It would have been logical, for propaganda purposes, to have described the installations such as the disinfestation chambers intended for personal effects located in buildings 5a and 5b as homicidal gas chambers . But this was never attempted, nor are there any eyewitness testimonies as to such a utilization of these premises. Furthermore, the doors drawn in the plans of the disinfestation chambers of buildings 5b—as well as the doors located there today—open inwards, which would have rendered it impossible to remove bodies lying in front of the doors after the mass gassings. These rooms were, therefore, certainly never used as homicidal gas chambers . It is nevertheless possible that an attempt was made to represent the disinfestation chamber in... 

Whereas it was still the rule, until a few years ago, for the eyewitness testimonies to allege daily, or even continuous, gassings,528 today it is occasionally assumed, as a result of the drastic reduction in the... 

The author of this report can refer only to the existing eyewitness testimonies and documents, which alone are the basis for the widespread historical viewpoint in the matters dealt with here. 

Several contributions to this anthology point out, and rightly so, that the testimony of eyewitnesses is unreliable these contributions back their claims with numerous examples, some of which are indeed truly grotesque. Such experiences certainly agree with those of other historians of the Second World War. This is not to say that eyewitness statements are entirely superfluous, but practical experience definitely has shown that they must always be examined and corroborated with authentic documents. My personal experience has been that as early as 1970 eyewitness testimony about details of the events of the war was so unreliable that it would have been a breach of professional duties to base a historical treatise on them alone. 

Two pieces of eyewitness testimony from Mao Tse-tung s wartime hideout in China s northern Yenan province bear comparison. The first is the report by Peter Vladimirov, the Soviet liaison to Mao s headquarters in Yenan during 1941-45. According to the Soviet-published Vladimirov Diaries, the Chinese Communist Parly operating in Yenan grew opium for profit, not only for medicinal uses. Opium had been a major cash crop for Yenan before Mao s arrival Vladimirov claimed that Mao continued the practice. The Soviet representative also suspected the CPC s chairman s close contact with American visitors connected to the Institute for Pacific Relations. (7)... 

Of course all this does not necessarily mean that the thousands of eyewitness reports and confessions regarding the Holocaust are false. But our justice system knows from centuries of experience that eyewitness testimony is the least valuable evidence, being the most unreliable kind. Therefore it... 

Once the first hurdle in a discussion with Johny Doe has been taken - in other words, once a realization of the inadequacy of eyewitness testimony has been achieved and understanding gained for the fact that a charge as horrendous as that of the destruction of the European Jews requires supplemental and better evidence - the question usually crops up whether it is even appropriate to quibble about details of this destruction and its provability, since after ah the disappearance of six million Jews during the Second World War is an undeniable fact. 

Often it is considered sufficient to cite portions of documents out of their proper context, or arbitrarily select a few documents from many others of relevance. The well-known book by Daniel J. Goldhagen represents in effect the climax of this approach,138 and it has been massively criticized for this even from the establishment side. However, Goldhagen s work is merely the logical, radical conclusion of this general tendency to selectively interpret source materials. Consequently, the criticism directed at Goldhagen generally reflects poorly on his establishment critics themselves.139 Two prominent examples for such poor historiography are the well-known authors Jean-Claude Pres-sac and Danuta Czech. Both profess to reconstruct the history of Auschwitz (or Ausch-witz-Birkenau) on the basis of documents and, in the case of Danuta Czech, also of eyewitness testimony. 

Insiders had realized as early as winter 1991 that something was in the wind, since Liiftl had already published preliminary hints in the engineering paper Konstruktiv that not all was right with some historical eyewitness testimony. He did not at that time make reference to the Holocaust, leaving it up to the reader instead to make the connection based on the facts and questions raised.2... 

On May 19, 1991, Liiftl responded to this letter and pointed out, with examples, that the eyewitness testimony and confessions of alleged perpetrators which he had examined were factually incorrect, and informed Dr. Graff of the contents of a letter he (Liiftl) had sent to Professor Jagschitz on May 10, 1991. 

Further Details, Conclusions and Questions 9.8.1. Uncritical Acceptance of Eyewitness Testimonies... 

Crematoria chimneys do not spew flames during the cremation process. All eyewitness testimonies asserting such a phenomenon are false. 

---