Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day002.03 Last-Modified: 2000/07/20 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Would you be content to proceed along the lines I have indicated and if you reach a point where, for example, Mr Rampton is putting to you a document which you have not had a chance to look at before, then you make . P-121 that point and ---- MR IRVING: Precisely. MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- we ask him, perhaps, to go on to some other point? MR IRVING: I believe that the present atmosphere and climate of opinion in court is, as Mr Rampton rather indicated, it is not fair to sand bag your opponents with surprise materials. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is very much the way in which litigation is now conducted. MR IRVING: And we certainly have not done so. I found it mildly offensive that the Defendant should imply that we had. I have subjected the Defendants to a stream of questions over the last few weeks on their reports which, clearly, indicates which way we are thinking. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, may I now ask Mr Rampton whether he is happy to proceed in the way I have just outlined? MR RAMPTON: I will proceed in any way your Lordship wants; the problem I have starting straightaway with Auschwitz is simply a practical one. I do not have my Auschwitz papers here. I have to go and get them. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: We will not get to Auschwitz today? In that case, there is no problem, I can start tomorrow. If I do not have to cross-examine today, then I do not have any problem at all. I will start wherever it pleases your . P-122 Lordship tomorrow. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But, in principle, the idea of dealing with Auschwitz separately is one that I believe you are in favour of? MR RAMPTON: Yes. We were given an indication that Mr Irving's opening in evidence-in-chief would take us up to about the end of the week after next, that is to say, until Monday, 24th January, which is why Professor van Pelt is not here at the moment. So, in that sense I have a slight reluctance to start on Auschwitz until he gets here. It is not an overwhelming reluctance by any means at all. I can quite easily, on the other hand, start with something completely different. I can start with issues arising from Professor Evans' report without any problem at all. MR JUSTICE GRAY: He covers really the whole gamut. MR RAMPTON: I know. From your Lordship's point of view, that is perhaps a little inconvenient. The alternative -- it is one I do not advance with any great warmth -- is to adjourn this case until the beginning of next week by which time Mr Irving should be up to speed on Auschwitz. I say that for this reason. Although it is perfectly true that the source documents were served on him last week, Van Pelt's report, the fact is that a very large number of those reports, documents, plans are illustrated in van Pelt's report; that they have been . P-123 available in the archives in Auschwitz and in Moscow for a very long time. The main report was served at the end of July last year. I do not have all of that much sympathy with Mr Irving -- I have some, of course, because he is in person. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I think the point you make is actually a fair one, that Professor van Pelt makes his point in his report without actually exhibiting the source material, but it is pretty obvious what he is saying. MR IRVING: My Lord, it is not. Architectural consultants who have asked us for detailed drawings of many levels of the construction work that went on over a period. They need to know where the light switches were, that kind of thing. You cannot see that kind of information from the rather smudgey photocopies that were exhibited to the report. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: You do not do any better if you look at the nice coloured photographs which Professor van Pelt has now produced in that regard. They are just better copies of what he has already reproduced. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am very reluctant to adjourn the case. I really think we have to get on for obvious reasons. MR IRVING: My Lord, can we not start the cross-examination on non-Auschwitz matters which will certainly take us up to the weekend? I am sure Mr Rampton has a any number of . P-124 questions he is curious about. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am perfectly easy. I think you had between you reached agreement. It appears, perhaps, that is not really right. I do not mind in which order we take things. I think there is something to be said for taking Auschwitz first, but if you prefer that it was dealt with the other way round, that is fine. MR RAMPTON: I can deal with a whole range of different topics, not necessarily in an orderly fashion. That is the trouble. What I am anxious to avoid is when I do get to Auschwitz in cross-examination, perhaps it might be tomorrow, for example, Mr Irving says, "Well, I am sorry, I cannot answer that, I have not had time to think about it or to instruct myself". That is absolutely hopeless. He then comes back, having heard my questions, and we have to start all over again. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, I see that. MR RAMPTON: I am not really interested in attributing blame for these things. He is obviously not up to speed on Auschwitz and I do not really want to cross-examine him on it until he is because it is an unfair contest, apart from anything else. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let us do it the other way round then. Let us take the other issues. That is really a course that you prefer, is it not? MR IRVING: That was my original proposal, my Lord. . P-125 MR RAMPTON: When Professor van Pelt gets here (which is the week after next, I think) then I will start on Auschwitz because that, I would think, would have given Mr Irving enough time. MR IRVING: We are looking forward to it, in fact. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We will proceed on the opposite basis of taking all the other issues. MR IRVING: I am indebted, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is up to you in which order you deal with them, but you will start with your reputation and history which I think you can take quite ---- MR IRVING: In cross-examination? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, this is in chief. MR IRVING: Right. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Then it is really entirely up to you, I think, how much you want to say in chief, and it is not very easy for you to do because in a sense you will be making a speech from the witness box, or whether you want to simply submit yourself to cross-examination on these various other issues, Dresden, Hitler's role, and the like. MR IRVING: The court would simply certainly prefer for reasons of integrity that the evidence should be under oath. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I would, I think that is the right way of doing it. MR IRVING: Then the sooner I go into the witness box, . P-126 therefore, the better. That may well speed things up. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. So you are happy to proceed in that way? MR IRVING: I am happy to proceed in that way, provided the Auschwitz stage is left until later on. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is going to be. Mr Rampton, you are content with that as well? MR RAMPTON: Yes, I agree to that. I will find something else to start with. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sure you will. Mr Irving, the next problem, and you can really choose whichever you prefer, that is the witness box. If you find it more convenient to stay where you, I am perfectly happy if Mr Rampton is happy at this stage anyway, for the evidence to be given from there. When it comes to cross-examination, the position may be different because I do not see that you can really cross-examine along a row. But it may be easier for Mr Irving to stay where he is for the time being. MR RAMPTON: That is what Miss Rogers suggested. It is a good idea. He has all his papers there. When he gets to be cross-examined, we may have to have a break while he gets all the stuff up there because I cannot cross-examine side by side. MR IRVING: I would prefer, my Lord, the first part of the cross-examination should be done from box, but when we . P-127 come to the Auschwitz stage where we will have papers, I might revert to your Lordship's original proposal, that it should be continued with me standing here. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We will see about that when the time comes. But would you prefer to give your evidence-in-chief -- -- MR IRVING: I would prefer to give it from the traditional place. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Unless you want to deal with anything else, I think you ought to go and be sworn. MR IRVING: Very well, my Lord. At some stage, of course, my Lord, your Lordship is aware wish to deal with the Hizbollah allegations and the Farrakhan allegations, but this can done at any time. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think even that is best done from the witness box because this is a libel trial, it is a rather unusual one, but you will want to give what one might call some of the standard defamation evidence. MR DAVID IRVING, sworn Examined by the Court. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I think the best thing is if I give you a little bit if a steer, if I can put it that way. Would you rather sit down? A. I am not sure that I need scaring. Q. No, the word I used was "steer" not "scare", simply so that your evidence has a shape that might make it more comprehensible. Shall we start by your full name address? . P-128 A. My full name is David John Cawdell -- I will spell that, C-A-W-D-E-L-L Irving, I-R-V-I-N-G. Q. And address? A. My address is No. 81 Duke Street, London W1. Q. Yes. You have made a witness statement for the purposes of this action and it is dated 22nd January last year. Would you formally confirm that that is so? A. That is so. I have made a witness statement and the statements in it are true. Q. Yes, thank you. Now, you can take it that I have read it, but, as you pointed out a little while ago, the Press is reporting this case and I think it would be right to give you the opportunity to restate in summary form anything that you wish to from that statement. A. I do not have a copy of the statement with me. Q. I think you probably should. Do you have anyone to help you fetch and carry documents? A. My entire staff was called to the Bar just before Christmas, unfortunately. Q. Perhaps if you can provide? Thank you. A. The statement is 18 pages, my Lord. If I were to read the statement out, it would take us until lunch time or would that be too long? Q. I am very much against you doing that because the main object of the exercise is, perhaps, to get your evidence across to me. I have read it, but I am giving you the . P-129 opportunity to be selective and make in a summary way any of the points that you want to make again in your oral evidence. A. I think I have made the principal statements from this. I repeated them in my opening statement yesterday. My books have received high praise from established academic, official and government historians in every country where they have been published. I just mention the names of Professor Hugh Trevor-Roper, AJP Taylor, Professor MRD Foot, Captan Stephen Roskill, Professor Norman Stone, Professor Donald Cameron Watt. The reason I have mentioned those names, as your Lordship will see in your files copies of the reviews and praise that these people have given to my works. I have not only written about World War II, of course; I have also written about other matters like the Hungarian Uprising and the German Uranian Research Programme during World War II. John Keegan, the Defence Correspondent for The Daily Telegraph (and your Lordship will be aware why I have stated this) has written: "Two books in English stand out from the vast literature of the Second World War: Chester Wilmott's 'The Struggle for Europe' published in 1952 and David Irving 'Hitler's War'" which appeared three years ago. That kind of quotation rather gives the lie to the statement by the Second Defendant . P-130 which we saw on video that nobody takes me seriously.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor