Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day007.15
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   Q.   Venturing on to a territory of history, an area of
        history, of which he had absolutely no knowledge whatever,
        making world-shattering statements from the witness box in
        Canada without having done any research suggests, does it
        not, Mr Irving, that you had an ulterior motive for doing
        it?
   A.   Let me give you an analogy, Mr Rampton -- it just occurs

.          P-125

        to me.  Suppose just before you are going to go into the
        witness box, the barrister for the Defence comes up to you
        and says, well, the man is alleged to have been shot by a
        nine-milimetre automatic, but, unfortunately, we now find
        out that the bullet that was found in the body was a 38;
        would not this be sufficient grounds, even for a person
        who is not versed in ballistics, to say, "Well, I am
        beginning to change my mind"?
   Q.   It is a rotten analogy which I do not want to pick up,
        Mr Irving, because it will just waste time.
   A.   You have to remember, I have just been going into the
        witness stand in Toronto to pontificate, if you can put it
        like that, about Hitler and the decision-making at the top
        level, and I have been shown by the barrister laboratory
        reports produced by a qualified laboratory in New England,
        suggesting very strongly that there is no significant
        residue of cyanide compounds to be found in the fabric of
        the so-called gas chambers at Auschwitz where millions of
        people have been gassed, or hundreds of thousands of
        people have been gassed.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What was the relevance, as you saw it, of
        that to your own evidence?  Why did they come to your
        hotel and talk about the Leuchter report?
   A.   I think probably because they were trying to get the
        Leuchter report before the judge.
   Q.   Not through you?

.          P-126



   A.   They were having difficulties, my Lord, because the
judge
        had taken judicial notice of the Holocaust in Canada
and
        they were in legal difficulties.  My Lord, I am not a
        legal expert and I can only begin ----
   Q.   No, the answer is you do not really know?
   A.   The answer is I do not know, but if you ask me the
reason
        why I suspect they were trying to get me to make
reference
        to it and to try to bring it before the jury, before
his
        Lordship, in that case Lock J could intervene to say
this
        matter has been ruled inadmissible.
   Q.   I was puzzled.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, you just given what you know to be
an
        untrue answer to his Lordship.  The Leuchter report
was
        ruled out of court because the judge held that Mr
Leuchter
        had no relevant expertise that would justify his
report
        going before the jury.
   A.   I would be grateful if you would lead that evidence
        actually on a documentary basis.
   Q.   I will.  I do not have the file here.  You will see it
on
        Monday.
   A.   Yes, but you remember I questioned that before when
you
        said that.
   Q.   It is in the transcript.  I cannot give you the page
        number.
   A.   That was not my understanding of the reason why the
        document was ruled inadmissible.

.          P-127



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We will wait until we have the
transcript,
        shall we?
   A.   And certainly, if that is the reason why, then it was
not
        to my knowledge.
   MR RAMPTON:  It was quite clear from the answer -- I am not
        suggesting you gave an answer to the judge in Canada
which
        was untrue at all?
   A.   You are saying I gave an answer just now which was
untrue
        and I am on oath.
   Q.   Yes, I believe that it is and we will come back to it.
        Mr Irving, you said to the Judge in Canada, truthfully
        I believe, that you had never been to Auschwitz to
look at
        the archive?
   A.   It was true then and it is true today.
   Q.   It is true today?
   A.   And you know the reason why.
   Q.   I have no idea what the reason why is?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Does it matter?
   MR RAMPTON:  It does not matter.
   A.   Because I am banned from visiting Auschwitz or the
        archives.  I am the only historian in the world who is
not
        allowed to set foot in the Auschwitz archives.
   Q.   When did that happen?
   A.   Last summer -- summer 1996.
   Q.   But between this trial in 1988, yes, and whenever the
ban
        was imposed recently, you have had every opportunity
to

.          P-128



        visit the archives in Auschwitz, have you not?
   A.   I do not think so.  I think the ban would have been
        imposed even then.  I think it is like the big casinos
in
        Los Vegas.  They do not want the big winners to come.
        They said, "For God's sake, don't let David Irving
come
        and look in our archives".
   Q.   What is the reason for the ban in the Czech Republic -
-
        no, Poland, sorry, as it is still is, Mr Irving?
   A.   They did not state.  In their letter to me, they said:
         "Mr Irving, you will not be permitted to set foot on
the
        territory of the Auschwitz camp nor will you be
allowed to
        enter the archives".
   Q.   Do you not think it virtually certain that the reason
for
        that is that ever since the Zundel trial in 1988, you
have
        been up on your hind legs denying that Auschwitz
served
        the purpose which everybody knows that it did?
   A.   Well, in that case they have taken precisely the wrong
        attitude with me.  They should have said, "Mr Irving,
do
        come round.  We have some very interesting documents
here
        which will change your mind".  They know perfectly
well
        that had they produced one document to me of quality,
        I would immediately have changed my mind because I
have no
        axe whatever to grind on this.  I have repeatedly said
        that.  But they took the opposite attitude.  They
said,
         "Don't let him anywhere near our archives.  That is
David
        Irving who exposed the Hitler diaries and all these
other

.          P-129



        frauds".
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Does it matter what these various
governments
        have said and done?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, it does.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Why?
   MR RAMPTON:  Because the reason for the ban has likely been
        Mr Irving's denial of the Holocaust without any
evidence.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, sure, and I want to see the denials,
but
        I do not think I am really interested in knowing what
the
        Polish government did about it.
   MR RAMPTON:  It is only a passing suggestion that he has
        brought the ban on himself.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So what if he has?
   A.   In which case this is one more example of the damage
        done to me by the book that the Defendants have
published.
   MR RAMPTON:  Did you make any attempt to go to Auschwitz,
        following your first receipt of the -- I cannot
remember
        the man's name -- Leuchter report and your publication
of
        it in this country in 1989?
   A.   Why should I have done so, if I may ask the question?
        What possible reason would I have had to go to
Auschwitz?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  But the answer is no?
   A.   The answer is no because I am not a holocaust
historian,
        my Lord.
   MR RAMPTON:  The answer is no.  Did you take any steps
before
        you published it with a press conference in London in
May

.          P-130



        or June -- June, I think it was -- 1989, did you have
any
        steps to have its logic and its science and Mr
Leuchter's
        methodology verified?
   A.   The whole point of publishing a document like this is
in
        order to test the hypothesis.  You put it up on the
wall
        and you invite people then to contact you and say,
"This
        is wrong, that is wrong, this is flawed", and this is
        precisely what happened.
                  In fact, Mr Rampton, you will notice in my
        introduction to the report, as you are aware, I
described
        this report as being flawed.  One would have wished to
see
        it written differently and the investigations carried
out
        differently.  So it was published with reservations by
        myself as a publisher.
   Q.   Mr Irving, the answer to my question is no, is it not?
   A.   The answer is just as I gave it.
   Q.   The answer is you did not take any steps to have the
        contents of the Leuchter report, and Mr Fred
Leuchter's
        shattering conclusions, as you describe them, you did
not
        do anything at all to have them verified by an
independent
        expert or experts, did you?
   A.   The very act of publishing the report was the attempt
to
        get it verified.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The answer is no.
   MR RAMPTON:  The answer is no?
   A.   I beg your pardon?

.          P-131



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The answer is no.  It is helpful to --
you
        add things, but, you know, answer the question and
then
        elaborate if you feel you must.
   A.   Is a publisher bound to take steps to verify in detail
the
        scientific basis of every book that he publishes?
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, if he adds the weight of his own
        authority as a noted historian on this period in human
        history, then the answer must be yes, must it not?
   A.   Mr Rampton, then I would draw your attention to the
        language in which my introduction was couched which
was
        clearly with reservations.
   Q.   Some small reservations?
   A.   And it says the ball is now in their court which makes
        quite clearly the trial nature of the publication of
this
        document.
   Q.   Did you have a press conference on 23rd June 1989 to
        announce the publication of the Leuchter report?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Did you say at that press conference: "The buildings
which
        we now identify as gas chambers in Auschwitz were
not"?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Had you had any research done beyond what appeared in
the
        Leuchter report to verify that statement before you
made
        it?
   A.   No.
   Q.   Thank you.  "I cannot accept", you said, "that they
had

.          P-132



        gas chambers there.  There was no equipment there for
        killing people en masse."  You went on:  "And hydrogen
        cyanide is wonderful for killing lice, but not so good
for
        killing people unless in colossal concentrations".
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Did you take any steps to verify the scientific and
        biological correctness of that statement ----
   A.   No.
   Q.   --- before you made it.  Do you know now that it is
        complete rubbish?
   A.   No, I would not agree.
   Q.   Have you read the appendices to Mr Leuchter's report?
   A.   Which appendices?
   Q.   The ones appended to his report?
   A.   There are several appendices.
   Q.   Yes.  They are all here.  I have got them.
   A.   Yes, but I am saying that I have read some of them and
        I have not read the others.
   Q.   Shall we just have a quick look at them?  Are they
        attached to your version?
   A.   Well, they are not in the slim line version, as you
might
        call it.
   Q.   Unless somebody can find me the reference in court,
this
        also will have to go back to Monday.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, it must be somewhere, surely.
   MR RAMPTON:  Well, I know.

.          P-133



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is probably the most important single
        document in the case.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am sorry, I did not do the files.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, I am not casting blame anywhere.
   MR RAMPTON:  No, I am not trying to cast blame.  I am
trying to
        find the report.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Professor van Pelt might know where it
is.
   MR RAMPTON:  He has his own copy, I expect, and he did not
do
        the filing either.  I will send out some messages, to
put
        it politely, at the end of today and make sure that
        everybody has the same copy as I have.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You did say you were going to deal with
the
        denials.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So that is something one can deal with
        without the Leuchter report.
   MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, there is a problem about this, not
from
        my point of view, but from your Lordship's point of
view.
        Miss Rogers and I have not been arguing about it, but
we
        are thinking the best way of dealing with it.  There
are
        so many of them and the transcripts are so long that
my
        voice could conk out and your Lordship would die of
        boredom if I went through them all.
                  The fact that I select some passages in some
of
        them over a period of time should not allow anybody to
        think that this is not a topic which Mr Irving has

.          P-134



        returned to again and again and again over a period of
        years from 1988 onwards.
   A.   We will not have difficulty with the denials because I
        denied at that time and I deny now that the buildings
        shown to the tourists at Auschwitz are gas chambers or
        ever were.
   Q.   That is easy.  In case, I can give your Lordship the
        references simply, can I not?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  Can we just spend a few minutes on
this
        because it is really a sort of methodological kind of
        problem, is it not?
   MR RAMPTON:  It is.

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor