(May 8, 2013 at 11:52 pm)A_Nony_Mouse Wrote:(May 8, 2013 at 11:29 pm)catfish Wrote: Ummm, I think we should just get a list of "acceptable" sources before we continue. Predicatable Bob is well, predictable...
Bob? What sources would you accept ?
As the charge is mass murder I find the standards being the same as those in a simple murder trial to be acceptable. Acceptable sources would be those acceptable in such a trial. But of course the same rules would apply. Beyond a reasonable doubt for one. And then first the physical evidence a crime has been committed and then only sworn testimony to the physical evidence. Most of it everyone who watches TV has seen enough of it to speak the lines before the actors. Mass murder being a greater crime than a single murder there is no excuse for lesser standards.
If this really bothers anyone the Nuremberg trial transcripts are online to start with. If it were a US trial it would have been overturned on appeal as not being justice at all but it is a place to start.
What is not acceptable is anonymous words or people who spoke without oath and penalty of perjury, third party books talking about what anonymous sources said. Also not camp rumors, not hearsay, not communist war propaganda, not sources lying in part, not sources under duress, things unacceptable in a US court.
Will you accept that in US court, a confession, although solely testimony, is sufficient evidence?
.
