I'm going to skip the memo-by-memo exchange. It's what the material is built for—he publishes faster than anyone can check, and forty messages from now on the list will have learned nothing.
One question instead. Furr treats the 1938 trial confessions as substantive evidence about what the defendants did. He treats the 1940 Beria memo on Katyn as a forgery, on internal stylistic grounds, with no chain-of-custody argument. What single evidentiary standard produces both of those results? If there's an answer, I'll read it seriously. If there isn't, what we're looking at is a brief written backward from a verdict, and it should be read that way. -- Tony -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#43359): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/43359 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/121137801/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
