It anyone can help, don't need to do all of it, if it's too long. BTW, for those that have already read it from the other forum, it is an editted version with few more pages added.
The Malta Tribunal that never was.
Denialists of the Armenian genocide often claim that a “Malta tribunal” was conducted by the British, and after investigations and prosecutions, the prisoners were released because of lack of “proof.” But according to historical records there never was any Malta tribunal; such lies are meant to fool the innocent reader into believing that the extermination of the Ottoman Armenians never occurred and in the same time to divert the attention from a real tribunal that concluded that in reality, the Armenians were victims of extermination. In fact, the Turkish military tribunal, brought evidences from Ottoman high officials that the Armenians were victim of a premeditated plan to annihilate them. The apologists, of the genocide, claims that the tribunal in question was set by the allies and therefore not credible. Such denialist don’t realise that such a claim would as well discredit the Nuremberg tribunal that brought NAZI war criminals to be judged; because the Nuremberg was conducted by the allies, while the military tribunal was a Turkish tribunal, so if a "Turkish" tribunal was controlled by the "invaders" so was the Nuremberg. And if in fact, the documents presented during the Turkish tribunal were forged, one wonder why Turkish government to these days forbidden any access to them. If they are forged, why being afraid to make them public?
As well, what denialists fail to mention is that the prisoners of Malta, many of them were handed to the British officials after being convicted as guilty by the Turkish military tribunal, in fact, there was supposed to be two tribunals, the first one, being a Turkish one, to judge and send to Malta those being charged, and after the tribunal ends, provide to the British officials the documents that served them to charge the criminals sent to Malta.
The claim that Malta prisoners were taken without any selections fall short when reviewing the files attached to each prisoner. One example here is the one of Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey.
Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey Malta No. 2800
“Vali of Bitlis, March 1914 to September 1915. Under Secretary of State, Ministry of the Interior. Vali of Aleppo October 1915 to April 1917 Brother in law of Talaat.
His name appears on Lists VI and VII ( List VII is the F.O. List).
A. He was arrested by the Turkish Government on 9th March 1919, not at our suggestion. The charge was murder. On the Turkish prison list of 7th February 1920, he is stated to have been release on bail; date not given (probably some time between 20.9.19 and 7.2.20).
B. He was again arrested by the British Military Authorities on or about the 14th May 1920.
Petitions: None to date, 25.2.21
5027/A/20. Through Mr. Ryan on 19th September 1919. Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis, took part in the councils held at Erzurum to decide on the deportations and massacres of Armenians. These councils were presided over by Dr. Behaeddin Shakir, delegate of the Central C.U.P. (one of the Principal Eight); other members were Tashin Bey (a deportee), Vali of Erzurum; Muammer (a deportee) Vali of Sivas, Djevdet (a deportee), Vali of Van.
5030/B/10. On September 26, 1919, Mrs. Sophie Varjabedian, a Bitlis refuge then at Haidar *****, c/o Rev. B. Bedrossian, Bible House, Constantinople, writes accusing Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis having carried away under his personal superintendence the safe from the American Mission in Bitlis. The safe contained her money and jewelry. Miss Chane, now at Erivan, reported this to Mrs. Varjabedian. She asks for the restoration of her property and gives a list.
Assistant High Commissioner approved the suggestion of making inquires at the United States Embassy but there is no record as to whether any action was taken.
5031/A/6. Name merely appears on a Bureau d'Information Armenien list of 30. 12.18, as the Vali of Aleppo, in connection with Marash massacres.
5035/C/178. On June 7th, 1919, Mrs. Ahisag Ahet Ahlahadian writes, through the A.C.R.N.E (American Committee, Relief in the Near East), saying that she is a Protestant Syrian of Bitlis and that all her relatives had been massacred in 1915 in Bitlis in spite of the fact that she had paid the Vali, Mustafa Abdul Halik, to the extent of LT 541 gold.
5036/48. A. Account by Sympat Kerkoyan of crimes committed by Mustafa Abdul Halik at Bitlis in 1915. Starving prisoners; massacring 200 to 300 at a time outside the town; ravishing and massacring the women; extorting and looting of Armenian property. The stench from putrefying bodies was so bad that Buheddin, Director of Health, Bitlis, received orders to have the bodies incinerated. Buheddin was in Aleppo in 1918. B. Also murder of Djerdjis Kerkoyan, brother of Sympat after Mustafa Abdul Halik had extorted his fortune on promising to spare his life. C. Mustafa Abdul Halik replaced Bekir Sami Bey (the "good" Vali, now a prominent Nationalist) at Aleppo on 4.10.15. There he gave orders for the deportation and killing of Sympat Kerkoyan. Thanks to Hadji Yehia Galib Bey, the defterdar, (now the defterdar of Kastambol) Sympat reached Mossul alive. The above per Mr. Rizzo on 16.10.19.
5030/A/21. Statement by Sympat Kerkoyan, merchant of Bitlis dated 19.5.20. Bitlis May 1915 atrocities. Massacre of Kerkoyan's family; wife and three children; three brother and their families. Kerkoyan's deportation to Mossul by the Vali of Aleppo; Mustafa Abdul Halik.
This prisoner(Abdul Halik Bey) was not arrested without reason, from British archival records Abdul Halik was present at the Council held in Erzerum to put in application the extermination measures. From the same British archival record, Cevdet the governor of Van, Tashin, Muammer and Dr. Sakir were as well present during that Council. The group was even called: “all the very worst of criminals.” (Source: Report of September 19, 1919, Andrew Ryan, BFO 371/6501, pg 4, folder 540/40)
The British had even selected some of the prisoners that should, in no circumstances, be released, and about the four governors that planed and executed the eradication of the Armenians in Eastern Ottoman, after documenting their guilt they concluded: “whom we propose to retain to the last they are gravely implicated in the crimes of massacre.” (Source: BFO 371/6504, folders 136, 146. As well, BFO 371/6504/E10023)
But later the War office implored Foreign Secretary Curzon to release the group in order to exchange them with the two British prisoners that the Kemalists took, Rawlinson and Campell.(Source: BFO 371/6504, E10411) By doing such Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) refused to honour the Exchange Agreement of March 16, 1921 that was excluding in the exchanges several Ittihadists that had a key role in the Armenian genocide. (source: FO 371/6500/E3375 (folio 284/15)) In fact the new Foreign Minister Youssouf Kemal asked for the “all for all” exchange. (Source: FO 371/6509(folio 47)) But the British have still tried to impose the agreement and the promises given by Mustafa Kemal himself, more particularly regarding about 20 of the most criminals among them. First, Cevdet the governor of Van with another (them and some others were called: “the most notorious members of the group”) escaped(source: FO 371/5091/E16080 (folio 85)), the British Foreign Office learning the news of the escape responded that the two prisoners “have broken parole.” On September 6, 1921, 16 other Ittihadists excluded from the exchange as well were able to escape. Angry the Foreign office remarked: “how little Turkish sense of honor can be relied on.” (Source: FO 3071/6509/E10662 (folio 159))
The Turkish sociologist and publicist Yalman, who had secret discussions with many of the Ittihadists, has been himself detained at Malta and has stated that the anti-Armenian measures reflected a "policy of general extermination" to remove "the danger" to Turkey of "a dense Armenian population in the Eastern Provinces." (Source: A. E. Yalman, Turkey in the World War (New Haven, 1930), 220.
The British plan to send to justice more criminals was becoming more problematic at end of September 1919, when Sultan Damad Ferid's Cabinet was being dissolved slowly in the profit of the Kemalism. On November 17, 1919, the new High Commissioner Admiral de Robeck, told Curzon that
“…the present Turkish Government...[is] so dependent on the toleration of the organisers of the [Kemalist] National Movement that I feel it would be futile to ask for the arrest of any Turk accused of offences against Christians, even though he may be living openly in Constantinople...I do not consider it politically advisable to deport [to Malta] any more prisoners.”
(Source: BFO 371/4174/15672 1 (folios 523-24)
And later also noted:
“…the question of retribution for the deportations and massacres will be an element of venomous trouble in the life of each of the countries concerned.”
(Source: BFO 371/4174/136069 (folio 470)
During the 20’s, Lamb, the political-legal officer of the British High Commission at Istanbul, understood the non-seriousness to judge the criminals detained in Malta, he warned his superiors:
“Unless there is whole-hearted co-operation and will to act among the Allies, the trials will fall to the ground and the direct and indirect massacres of about one million Christians will get off unscathed.”
(Source: FO 371/6500/, W. 2178, appendix A( folio 385-118, 386-119), Aug. 11, 1920.)
One must not ignore that adding to the fact that the prisoners were released because they were exchanged with British prisoners, as well the fact that it was advised to release them because the imperial government decided to have good relations with the Kemalists. Another major reason was responsible of the release of the prisoners, a reason that apologists have tried to keep under the carpet. On March 10, 1921, Ankara's Foreign Minister Bekir Sami assured the British that the prisoners being released will be judged in a court. Later officially on June 11, 1921 the Ankara government informed the British that when the Malta prisoners will be released in exchange of British prisoners:
“…those accused of crimes would be put on impartial trial at Ankara in the same way as German prisoners were being tried in Germany.”
(Source: FO 371/6499/E3110, p. 190; see also FO 371/5049/E6376, folio 187; A. Yalman, Turkey in My Time ( Norman, OK, 1956), 106.)
The British at the end had no reason to keep the prisoners anymore… by releasing them they marked many points, first, the British prisoners will be released as an exchange, secondly they won’t have to deal with what they viewed as a “venomous trouble,” thirdly, in the eyes of the Kemalists they will gain some respect which as a result will open the roads of economical exchanges. Lastly, why keeping still those prisoners and having the trouble to judge them, when the Kemalists promised that those prisoners will be judged in Ankara?
It is true that many Ittihadist high ranked were judged by judicial proceedings in Izmir and Ankara. From them, Halis Turgut that escaped the prosecutions of the Turkish military tribunal previously, Ahmed Shükrü, Ismail Canbolat(the right hand of Talaat), Dr. Nazim, Yenibahçeli Nail, Filibeli Hilmi(Dr. Shakir’s right hand). Some of the killed/condemned to death were brigands and military officials and soldiers used by the Ittihadists. One of those Yahya Kaptan was killed in July 1922 by unknown assassins. The link between the facts that he has threatened Turkish officials to release state secrets if they were to carry investigations on him(he had a major role on the drowning into the see of thousands of women and children). Topal Osman was killed by a military unite trying to capture him in March 1923. Halit(Deli), was killed in the Turkish parliament on February 9, 1925.
Even after those trials, the honesty of the Kemalistic government could still be questioned. Since many influential figures in the Young-Turk government as well as pan-Turkists and pan-Turanists were later introduced in the Kemalist administration. The Young-Turk ex-minister of finances, Djavid Bey, was the nearest collaborator of Bekir Sami during the London conferences. Yunus Nadi Bey, that was as well in the Turkish delegation in at London was Smyrnas deputy; he was at the head of the “Yeni Gün” that was the principal Kemalist organ. Doctor Ziya Nur, considered by some the father of the neo-Turkism was the private adviser of Youssouf Kemal(he himself found a place in the Kemalist administration), the then, minister of foreign affairs. Ahmed Nessimi Bey, the minister of foreign affairs under Talaats government had leading roles in the administration. Sami Bey was placed at the head of the postal and telegraphic services at Ankara. As well many pan-Turkists introduced in the Kemalist administration like Youssouf Aktchoura, Aghaoghlou Ahmed, Husseinzade Ali, Ziya Gökalp, Köprülüzade Fuat, Mehmet Emin, Hamdullah Suphi, Ali Haidar, Halide Edip, Celal Nuri, Falih Rifki, Yacub Kadri and many others…
The two district governors that had a leading role in the genocide, Kemal and Nusret that were executed by the Kemalist government were considered as “national martyrs” their families received large sums of money, Nusret got a region, a school, and a street in Urfa called after him; in Bogazliyan, Kemal was honoured by the erection in the public square of his statue. Anakras government as well allocated pensions for the families of those executed by Armenian “avengers,” such as Talaat and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir etc…
Now, Back to Malta, Simsir in his work about Malta to support his claim that the prisoners were released because there were no evidences has referred to Curzon, but what Simsir ignores in his work, is that Curzon later call this decision as "a great mistake," and he even admit that reasons were build to support the release of the prisoners.
“The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused.”
British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7882/E4425, folio 182
Curzon claims, that they were released because there was no evidence, from his own admission were just a reason among many to justify the decision (release of the prisoners), when in fact there was no justification at all.
The claim that there was no evidence in US archives fall short when referring to the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921, when he declared.
“The U.S. archives contain a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres.”
FO 371/6503/E6311, folio 34
There never was any prosecutions, no pre-trial investigations, no interrogatories, so how can anyone claim to that matter that any tribunal “proved” them not guilty, when there was no tribunal in the first place? The Turkish military tribunal on the other hand, charged many Malta prisoners as guilty before sending them to Malta, this is why many were sent there, the Ottoman was supposed to send the documents supporting their guilt, no document was ever sent, the Kemalists dissolved the tribunal and the files were stolen.
Another interesting point is how Simsir uses in his article Undersecretary W.S. Edmonds quotations, when the individual in question was one of those recognising that the documents documenting the guilt of the prisoners were in Istanbul. He himself was troubled by the fact that Turks will react very badly if criminals were hanged because of their participations in the massacres of Armenians, he himself declared even at an early stages:
“Not one Turk in a thousand will think that any other Turk deserves to be hanged for massacring Christians.”
(Source: FO 371/4173/61185, folio 1270/278. Minutes recorded on April 22, 1919)
The British judge Lindsey Smith August 10 1921 declared:
"…a considerable amount of incriminating evidence was collected by the Turkish government but it is idle to expect to get it. The only alternative is therefore to retain them as hostages only and release them against British prisoners."
(Source: FO 371/6509/E10023 (folios 100-01))
Now, it is important to ask the question. Where were those documents? Since it is often claimed by denialists that the allies had the capital under control and that after searching they have found no evidences. It is even more important to know where the documents are, since the Turkish military tribunal brought to light that such documents in the form of “secret orders” did exist:
“The massacre and destruction (taktil ve ifna) of the Armenians was executed through secret orders by men who ostensibly had the assignment to implement the law of deportation. (zahiren tehcir kanununu tatbik etmek). “
Source: Published on August 6, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3616, p.1, Trabzon Verdict, 22 May 1919
This reference in the military tribunal refer to secret orders, references about those signed orders are abound in the transcripts of the military tribunal published in the Ottoman Law gazette "Takvimi Vekâyi"
“The documents, personally signed by the defendants, confirm the fact that the gendarmes escorted the deportee convoys for purpose of massacre. There can be no doubt and hesitation about this. (maksadi ... taktili oldugundan süphe ve tereddüt birakmadigindan). “
Source: Published on August 7, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3617, p.2, Yozgat Verdict, 8 April 1919
On 10 February 1919, British High Commissioner, Admiral Calthorpe sent to London reports from the British intelligentsia agency, from where the Turkish Public security official Mr. Aziz in charge of Interior Ministry's wartime archives declares:
“Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making clean sweep of most of the documents.”
Source: British Foreign Office Archives. FO371/4172/31307, folio 385.
Tunaya relying on Ittihad's Secretary-General Midhat's testimony write:
“The documents of Ittihad party were crammed into a suitcase by Dr. Behaeddin Sakir after they had been removed from the party headquarters by Dr. Nazim. The suicase was taken to home of attorney Ramiz, Sakir's brother-in-law.”
Source: Tunaya, T.Z. "Türkiyede siyasal partiler, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Istanbul: Hürriyet Vakfi publications. p. 96, n.16.
The Turkish press reported in December 1918("Aksam," 12 Dec. 1918; "Tasviri Efkâr," 13 Dec. 1918) that when the police raided Ramiz homes, they found documents that were still intact, they handed those documents to the Martial-court, then after the dissolution of the martial-court the documents left were never handed to the British like promised, Mr. Aziz contrary to the promises he made never handed those documents to them.
It must be noted here that Djemal's bureau's Deputy Director stated that before Djemal flight from Istanbul:
“...some of his files [containing] official documents were left in the custody of Syfi, one of his men, who out of fear burned them. “
Source: Atay, F.R. "Çankaya." Istanbul: Sena. pp. 127-128
The then minister of education Midhat Shukru…
“…made most of the CUP documents relative to Armenians disapper.”
(Source: FO 371/6500 p.480)
The documents incriminating some of the prisoners in Malta that the British were able to locate in Istanbul were reported disappearing. And the Nationalist government was suspected being the responsible.
“…disappearance of documents incriminating certain persons …saying that the matter has been arranged by local Nationalist leaders.”
(Source: Weekly Summary, March 4, 1920, British Embassy publication)
Other references to the destruction of those documents could be found in Aydemir work, where he writes:
“Before the flight of the top Ittihadist leaders, Talat Pasa stopped by at the waterfront residence of one of his friends on the shore of Arnavudköy, depositing there suitcase of documents. It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace. Indeed ... the documents and other papers of Ittihad's Central Committee are nowhere to be found. “
Source: Aydemir, S.S. "Makedonyadan Ortaasyaya Enver Pasa." Vol. 3, 1914-1922. Istanbul: Remzi. p. 493
It is evident when referring to those pieces of references that the allies had no access to the documents contrary to what is claimed by denialists. A telegram ordering the destruction of telegrams, from the Turkish Interior Minister to the provincial governor at Ayintab, was intercepted by the General Headquarters of the British Army's Egyptian Expeditionary force on 24 January 1919.
“Burn orginals of official telegrams since mobilisation on files of district. “
On 17 June 1919 the Turkish foreign Minister Safa protested to the British High Commissioner regarding British intrusions by trying to examine documents, and finally answered that such an intrusion will be unsuccessful, because the Diyarbekir-based Director of Telegraphic Service sent a circular telegram ordering to destroy these documents. Admiral Calthrope reported to London after this message:
“…attention to the tenor of this note which treats as a mere matter of office routine such an important matter as the proposed destruction of documents relating to the period of deportations, massacres, and the activities of the Turkish authorities during the war. “
The British facing the destruction of the documents in a weekly summary of intelligence report, dated 4 March 1920, declared from the British Military Intelligence Bureau:
“…the disappearance of documents incriminating ... Ittihadist. Talking of Rauf: he urged the destruction of incriminating documents. It is understood that Rauf had already arranged the disappearance of documentary material implicating himself and Enver Pasa.” [source: FO371/5166/E1782, Reports 575, 592]
Karay was in 1919 the General Director of Telegraphic Service in Turkey, he wrote that Mehmet Emin his predecessor, has sent orders to all principal telegraph centres in the country, directing them to:
“…destroy all official papers, the orginals and copies of all telegrams. “
(Karay, R.H. Minelbab lelmihrab, Istanbul: Inkilâp and Aka, p. 221)
Post minister Hüseyin Hasim admitted ordering the destruction of telegrams in 3 June 1919:
“…all military telegrams burned on orders from the War Office.” [source: "Takimi Vekayi." No. 3573, 12 June 1919]
From those Turkish and British evidences, the present Turkish documents relating to the Armenian massacres are either forged or manipulated, because the Turkish authorities to deny the Armenian genocide uses documents that from their own sources should have been destroyed. If in fact they are destroyed, then the documents the Turkish government present are "reconstitutions" and more probably "forged" invalid in court of law.
Raphael Lemkin, Lawyer, and the inventor of the word Genocide, refer about the prisoners of Malta in one of his writings.
“In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?
I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.
A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? . . . The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians.”
[Source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]
After this basic attempt to analyse the Malta cases, one can find surprising the fact that any denialist could still claim that there was a Malta tribunal, or that prisoners were released because of lack of evidences, or even worst, that the allies had access to every documents and they found nothing. Because even after all the precaution the Turks took to hide the fact of the Armenian genocide, if one research honestly without biases this cases and compare it for instance with the Nuremberg tribunal, this researcher will quickly realise that even with all those forgeries from the part of the Turkish republic, after all those manipulation, and after all the destruction of files, one still find that the evidences found in the official Ottoman Law gazette without doubt show us that what the Ottoman Armenians have gone trough was in fact an extermination, and those evidences by their quality show the intend more so than those used during the Nuremberg tribunal used to charge NAZI criminals.
One still wonders, and will keep wondering. Why having taken all those precautions to destroy those documents? Why the Ottoman refused to hand them to the British as promised? Why would the Kemalist dissolve the tribunal? What were they hiding?
So let ask this question again: Was there a Malta tribunal? No! There never was any Malta tribunal! Were the prisoners of Malta released because of lack of evidences? No! They were not, Curzon admission show us that this was not the cases. Had the allies access to every documents they wanted when they were “occupying” the capital? No! Not only that was not the cases, but even when using Ottoman Turkish documents, we have to conclude that even such documents shows us that the allies were unable to have access to such documents.
This peripheral analysis of historical records point us to a fact. The fact being that there never was any Malta tribunal, not only this, but the prisoners kept in Malta were not released because of lack of “proof.” This short essay shows us, that the prisoners were released to be exchanged with British prisoners, as well, in order to not obfuscate the new nationalist power in place. And finally, the British released those prisoners after having the guaranty that they will be trialled in Ankara. Furthermore, not ever prisoners were released, about a 20 among them, the British refused to release; as a result the succeeded in escaping by the help of the Kemalist power. The uses of the Malta cases by apologists of the Armenian genocide is one more example of the apologists paradox. In one hand the denialists reject the Turkish military tribunal, because they claim that it was a kangaroo tribunal set by the allies; on the other hand they uses the release of Turkish prisoners by the allies as an evidences that there was no genocide. If Malta prisoners were to be charged, the denialists will claim that the court charging them was set by the allies, therefore not credible… on the other hand, if the court in question was to release them… the same denialists will use this release as a “proof” that there was no genocide. In this cases, there never was any tribunal in the first place, so the denialists selectiveness picture us like there was one. The entire denialist methodology uses the apologist paradox. The Hearth of this paradox works like this.
Cases A, Evidence A forgery
Casea B, Evidence A not forgery
Let examine cases A. If evidence A is forgery, it is not an evidence. No further examination is necessary.
Let now examine cases B. If Evidence A is not forgery, it does not support the theses of genocide, so it isn’t an evidence to support the genocide. Therefore no evidences at all.
Those few lines are at the hearth of the denialist methodology… they will first try to reject an evidence by trying to show it as forgery… if they are able, they will therefore conclude that this evidence is not an evidence. If on the other hand they are not able to show the evidence as forgery, they will try to give another sense to the evidence, do everything to twist it, and finally conclude that even if it is not forgery, it does not support anything, therefore it is not an evidence. From this paradox, there can not be any evidences supporting the genocide, because the two theses leads to the same conclusion.
Edited by Fadix, 29 July 2004 - 09:44 AM.