I believe that it was nothing more than real anti-German nonsense. It was victor's justice basically speaking. The Scots mistreated and murdered Rudolph Hess without mercy too. But as for the trial I think it was nothing more.
I mean look at it this way, if Brits and Danes won't be tried for their colonial crimes, as we saw against Ireland and Greenland
Then the "evil" Germans or the other fascist enemies of WWII should not be tried either.
1. The defendents were not allowed to deny the main charges- all submitted documents were considered real and factual and all witness statements were as well and not subject to cross examination
2. Only the defendents were subject, not the allies who would have hung for the same crimes.
3. The defence were not able to see any documents that were not read into the court transcript or call any witnesses to their defence that were not able to testify and there.
4. All key "confessions" were obtained by torture
5. The evidence was falsified
6. The German's were impossible to prosecute under a normal trial because they conducted themselves the best out of all combattants- any real crimes the allies were also guilty of.
7. It was an exact analog of medieval witch trials
8. The only legal strategy available was "know nothing", "minimised involvement" or blaming someone who was not there (that's how Eichmann and Mengele enter the story- the only reason in fact).
What possible profit could there have been to fake such n event? And the corpses of the executed? We're they fake too? As to the fact if the Nuremberg trials were fair, here one can have a say, since most of the German scientists were immediately scooped up by either the USSR or the USA