|
Those who are familiar with the jury system of criminal justice look mostly
to TV and the guilty verdict at the of the show as all there is to it. Those
who look a bit further know there are usually several charges and verdicts
are delivered on each. What is clear to those familiar with the jury system
is the jury need only say guilty or not guilty.
Without a jury the tradition is quite different. A single judge or a panel
of judges (a tribunal) must do more than that. The verdict must be based
upon a written, point by point, consideration of the evidence presented and
an explanation of its impact upon the verdict.
In this verdict, in support of each finding of guilty or not guilty it must
present what affected the conclusion. The point of interest is that points
raised by the prosecution but not mentioned by the court as influencing the
verdict are not recognized by the court as having merit.
And that means a guilty on one charge does not automatically mean a finding
that all the evidence presented by the prosecution in support of charge was
accepted. It means only the evidence which was mentioned in the verdict was
found to support the charge was found acceptable to the court.
In several post WWII military tribunals including the premier one at
Nuremberg the prosecution introduced evidence of gas chambers. But in none
of them did the court mention them in the verdicts. Therefore the tribunals
did not consider them in support of the verdicts. Meaning the court gave
them no merit in arriving at the verdict.
Simply because something was introduced into evidence at a military tribunal
and because there were guilty verdicts does not mean the court found any
merit in the evidence. As gas chambers were not mentioned in the verdicts,
the military tribunals did not consider them of merit in the verdict. No one
can point to prosecution evidence in any tribunal and say it was valid
because of the guilty verdicts. That is not the way a trial by court works.
There is no value in pointing to any of the prosecution evidence unless it
is for the purpose of expositing something mentioned in the verdict as a
cause for conviction. Holohuggers can recite all the prosecution testimony
they wish but they don't have jack shit unless it was recited in the
verdict.
Search as hard as I can no verdict recites gas chambers as a cause for
conviction. As there is no such recitation the holohuggers are left with
nothing but their usual deluded morbid fantasies of gas chambers.
|