Josef 'Sepp' Dietrich

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

Well for the purposes of this discussion Dietrich's statement is hearsay since nobody seems to know what it actually was.

LOL

That's a good one [:)]

I like, I like. . .

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Oh, brother [8|]

The exceptions to the hearsay rule apply in cases OTHER than DIRECT PERSONAL TESTIMONY.

Except that the question is what Dietrich's testimony actually was. That question appears to be beyond you.

Why do you continue to dig a hole that goes nowhere?

In your arrogance and rudeness you are ignoring the question which has lingered now for several posts. Where is Dietrich's testimony as that's the issue here.

What exactly did Dietrich say, is that too complicated for you to follow?

No, you could not distinquish between direct testimony and hearsay.

Dietrich's initial sworn testimony was NOT hearsay.

You are changing your line of debate, dropping what you think hearsay meant as it applied to Dietrich, and now you are echoing the other voices here, claiming that you only want to see Dietrich's statements.

You are calling me arrogant because I know the difference? LOL

So, you have travelled a winding road in your posts. . .

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Now you have my attention.

I have looked at Reynolds book.

If this is what you are using as a reference, then no wonder, you are making such statements.

You make a habit of these sort of statements, I think it's a debating tactic designed to make people think something is clearly wrong with something, but put in such a way you don't have to prove it.

Firstly, which of Mr Reynold's books are you referring to? If you have read it, you presumably can tell me the title. (If you can't, a quick scan of Amazon should give you a title to give me).

Secondly, what did you think was wrong with it? I'm guessing you noticed factual errors, could you name them? I'd happily accept just one example off the top of your head at this stage.

Thirdly, what did the reviews at Amazon tell you about this book? I know you've used Amazon reviews for Farago and D'Este et al. What do they say about Reynolds?

Ironduke

There is something wrong, believe me. . .

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

What I wrote above means is, that you simply have nothing concrete to say, and you are arguing for the sake of arguing.

If it continues I will simply ignore your posts as I have done in the past.

But I do have something concrete to say, I was asking for your critique of D'Este. You have posted many reviews revealing this to be a well respected work in the past, and if you now think it flawed, (and you keep saying it is) do you not owe it to this forum to explain why, after your previous comments recommended it. Some of the Forum readers may be planning to read this after the recent Patton threads and should be forewarned of any innaccuracies, errors of interpretation etc.

IronDuke

You see Ironduke, that's why you should read more than just ONE book about Patton.

Believe me, my estimation about D'Este's book has fallen several notches.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I think we can have a perfectly sane discussion about Dietrich if we know more or less exactly what he did or didn't say. At the moment all we have is conjecture (better than 'hearsay' I feel[:)]) as to a sworn statement (contents unclear) that appears to have been later withdrawn as it was apparently made whilst under duress.

Again, you guys are confusing the issues here.

Whether we see Dietrich's statement or not is immaterial to his initial sworn statement. It was NOT hearsay.

I will say that again.

Dietrich's initial sworn statement was NOT HEARSAY.

The fact that Dietrich withdrew some of his statments is IMMATERIAL to it NOT being hearsay.

Does everyone understand that now?

Many murderers withdraw their initial confessions once they've had time to think things over.

This is a standard technique among murderers.

[Kevinugly]

Is it also standard practice for police forces to beat confessions out of suspects? Are these then held as evidence in court to achieve convictions?

[dinsdale]

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I suppose it's easier than discussing the issue.

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
No, you could not distinquish between direct testimony and hearsay.

Dietrich's initial sworn testimony was NOT hearsay.

You are changing your line of debate, dropping what you think hearsay meant as it applied to Dietrich, and now you are echoing the other voices here, claiming that you only want to see Dietrich's statements.

No possibly not, however when you claimed that stated to be following "hitlers orders" then that is prima facie hearsay as there's no mention of the fact that he claimed to be directly ordered by Hitler. This has been the line I have attempted to follow for this entire waste of time while you continue to butcher terms of which you have little comprehension.

There are exceptions to the rule which may have allowed it into court, that does not mean that it's not hearsay, but hearsay with exception. I predicted about 3 posts before that this would be too subtle for you, and that is indeed the case.

Now, if you have anything other than he claimed to be working under Hitler's orders I will of course accept that it was testimony, but you didn't make the claim earlier in the thread, and now make the claim without any evidence for it.

If you have anything new, other than parrot-style "it's not hearsay, you're all stupid" posts then that would be great, but I fear that you'll simply ignore and move on to something irrelevant and use that as "proof" that this testimony was not hearsay.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Von Rom
Unfortunately, at the moment I think with some of the questionable statements being made, that it will be difficult to have a sane discussion about Dietrich.

I mean, people can't even distinquish between direct testimony and hearsay.

But it isn't direct testimony, because he rescinded it. It it was direct testimony, he would have testified at his trial to it's veracity. Instead, at his trial, he said "Sorry, they got all that out of me under duress, and I made it up". How is this direct testimony?

IronDuke

ID:

You seem to be unable to grasp a certain fact:

Dietrich's initial sworn statement was DIRECT TESTIMONY. It was NOT hearsay. This will NEVER change.

If he retracks a part of it, that is his privilege. But it is STILL direct testimony that he is retracking.

It's up to the court to decide whether he is lying, telling the truth, or simply changing his story to save his neck.

But it's still Direct testimony.

I can't believe I have made a dozen posts trying to clarify this issue. [8|]

And you guys expect to have a reasonable discussion about Dietrich's trial, and you can't even grasp what direct testimony and hearsay mean?

[8|]

Anyway, I've had enough of this nonsense.

I have some interesting books to read.

See ya later, alligator. . .

I'll leave you all to ruminate over the issue of hearsay - LOL

[Kevinugly]

I think you've entirely missed the point Von Rom. I also think that you haven't actually read any books about the Dietrich trial and don't know what his testimony was if it was ever made (which makes it hearsay incidentally). So you are using the 'hearsay' issue as a smokescreen to cover your lack of knowledge. If you can return with a full transcript of the document in question I will, of course, be happy to retract[:)]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale

Are you deliberately being obtuse? I suppose it's easier than discussing the issue.

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
No, you could not distinquish between direct testimony and hearsay.

Dietrich's initial sworn testimony was NOT hearsay.

You are changing your line of debate, dropping what you think hearsay meant as it applied to Dietrich, and now you are echoing the other voices here, claiming that you only want to see Dietrich's statements.

No possibly not, however when you claimed that stated to be following "hitlers orders" then that is prima facie hearsay as there's no mention of the fact that he claimed to be directly ordered by Hitler. This has been the line I have attempted to follow for this entire waste of time while you continue to butcher terms of which you have little comprehension.

There are exceptions to the rule which may have allowed it into court, that does not mean that it's not hearsay, but hearsay with exception. I predicted about 3 posts before that this would be too subtle for you, and that is indeed the case.

Now, if you have anything other than he claimed to be working under Hitler's orders I will of course accept that it was testimony, but you didn't make the claim earlier in the thread, and now make the claim without any evidence for it.

If you have anything new, other than parrot-style "it's not hearsay, you're all stupid" posts then that would be great, but I fear that you'll simply ignore and move on to something irrelevant and use that as "proof" that this testimony was not hearsay.

Dinsdale:

I don't know how many times I can say this:

Dietrich swore UNDER OATH that he was present with Hitler, and heard with his OWN ears Hitler telling him DIRECTLY about the "wave of terror" order.

This is DIRECT TESTIMONY. It is allowed in court.

This is the last time that I will respond to one your posts on this issue.

You simply cannot grasp what hearsay means.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I think you've entirely missed the point Von Rom. I also think that you haven't actually read any books about the Dietrich trial and don't know what his testimony was if it was ever made (which makes it hearsay incidentally). So you are using the 'hearsay' issue as a smokescreen to cover your lack of knowledge. If you can return with a full transcript of the document in question I will, of course, be happy to retract[:)]

You simply fail to grasp the issue.

Whether we, here on this forum, ever see Dietrich's written testimony, is IMMATERIAL to it being hearsay.

His testimony was direct testimony in court.

We, ourselves, just haven't seen it. But that does not make it hearsay. It just means we haven't seen it.

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

I think you've entirely missed the point Von Rom. I also think that you haven't actually read any books about the Dietrich trial and don't know what his testimony was if it was ever made (which makes it hearsay incidentally). So you are using the 'hearsay' issue as a smokescreen to cover your lack of knowledge. If you can return with a full transcript of the document in question I will, of course, be happy to retract[:)]

What's absolutely hillarious is that the site you quoted but was apparently ignored by us all claims:

Hearsay testimony was allowed and affidavits could be submitted by witnesses who did not appear in the courtroom and thus could not be cross examined by the defe

Now it's not specific to Dietrich, but I find it amusing nonetheless. But who knows, perhaps they have no idea of what hearsay is either [:D]

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom
Dinsdale:

I don't know how many times I can say this:

Dietrich swore UNDER OATH that he was present with Hitler, and heard with his OWN ears Hitler telling him DIRECTLY about the "wave of terror" order.

This is DIRECT TESTIMONY. It is allowed in court.

This is the last time that I will respond to one your posts on this issue.

You simply cannot grasp what hearsay means.

Your trolling continues. Please cite evidence that this is indeed Dietrich's sworn testimony and the issue will not be in doubt. If I believed that this was your line originally I would not have entered the discussion. However, for the fifth or sixth time, I asked you if that was the case in my first or second post, but rather than answer you simply claimed I knew nothing.

Now if this is really the case, and really what you've said all along then why is it so difficult to produce the evidence of Dietrich's statement?

[Kevinugly]

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that he made a statement or even what was in it, apart from the brief reference in Cole. Therefore, for the sake of this discussion it's hearsay - 'of the nature of or based on reports given by others' (Chambers Dictionary) until we have something more 'concrete'[:)]

[Von Rom]

Well you boys go right ahead and mumble amongst yourselves; come up with your own ideas about what consititutes Hearsay; and make farcical statements about what should or should be seen by you in this forum at this instant.

I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. [8|]

kinda like a game of "Peek-A-Boo" I used to play with my Godson when he was a baby. . .

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well you boys go right ahead and mumble amongst yourselves; come up with your own ideas about what consititutes Hearsay; and make farcical statements about what should or should be seen by you in this forum at this instant.

I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. [8|]

kinda like a game of "Pick-a-boo" I used to play with my Godson when he was a baby. . .

[&:]

I've seen some bizarre posts in my time but this is truly weird. I use a dictionary definition of hearsay and this is the reply I get. Gheeesh[8|]

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well you boys go right ahead and mumble amongst yourselves; come up with your own ideas about what consititutes Hearsay; and make farcical statements about what should or should be seen by you in this forum at this instant.

I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. [8|]

kinda like a game of "Pick-a-boo" I used to play with my Godson when he was a baby. . .

[&:]

I've seen some bizarre posts in my time but this is truly weird. I use a dictionary definition of hearsay and this is the reply I get. Gheeesh[8|]

Sorry Kevin:

That post was not directed at you.

This thread has come to a screeching halt through a blather of meaningless posts.

I thought we could have had a meaningful discussion.

But I doubt that will happen.

I also suspect that this thread will be closed down very soon, since certain arguments and conclusions are not to certain peoples' liking.

[Kevinugly]

"In the books I have read on Dietrich's trial NEVER has the issue of his testimony being hearsay EVER been raised in over 50 years by ANY lawyers. Why? Because they know better."

Since you've read so many books, you must know what was in his testimony...... or were you trolling when you wrote this (I'm being polite btw[;)])

[Kevinugly]

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

ORIGINAL: Von Rom

Well you boys go right ahead and mumble amongst yourselves; come up with your own ideas about what consititutes Hearsay; and make farcical statements about what should or should be seen by you in this forum at this instant.

I guess if you can't see it, it doesn't exist. [8|]

kinda like a game of "Pick-a-boo" I used to play with my Godson when he was a baby. . .

[&:]

I've seen some bizarre posts in my time but this is truly weird. I use a dictionary definition of hearsay and this is the reply I get. Gheeesh[8|]

Sorry Kevin:

That post was not directed at you.

This thread has come to a screeching halt through a blather of meaningless posts.

I thought we could have had a meaningful discussion.

But I doubt that will happen.

I also suspect that this thread will be closed down very soon, since certain arguments and conclusions are not to certain peoples' liking.

If certain parties had not become obsessed with semantics then maybe that would be possible. However, without any extra information coming to light regarding the Dietrich testimony then I suspect you're right.

[Von Rom]

ORIGINAL: Kevinugly

"In the books I have read on Dietrich's trial NEVER has the issue of his testimony being hearsay EVER been raised in over 50 years by ANY lawyers. Why? Because they know better."

Since you've read so many books, you must know what was in his testimony...... or were you trolling when you wrote this (I'm being polite btw[;)])

Like I said, because of the actions of others, there will be NO meaningful discussion about Dietrich.

The last two pages of this thread has proven that statement.

Anyway, I'm off to have supper. . .