Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day011.22
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Why do you say that from the hinges?
   A.   Because the hinges seem to come forward, the hinges on the
        right side seem to come forward which means that ----
   Q.   I must say I cannot really see that.
   A.   Can I draw it?
   Q.   I know what you are saying, but I just do not see it on
        the photograph.
   MR IRVING:  It depends which side the hinges are, surely..
   A.   It is very clearly on the top, on the top hinge.  There
        are two hinges, and the top hinge.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I cannot see the top hinge.
   A.   It is right where the roof line is.  The roof line.  We
        are looking at document 11?  You can see it.  It is
        confirmed, it is confirmed by the next photo.
   MR RAMPTON:  I think, my Lord, your problem is you have not got
        a good photograph.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Have I not the same as everybody else?
   MR RAMPTON:  No, I have a much better one and so has the
        witness.   Let the Judge see the original.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I borrow?
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, that door could be mounted either way.  It

.          P-196

        entirely depends whether it is mounted inside or outside.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you very much.
   MR RAMPTON:  Professor, taking that, if you like, with
        Mr Tauber's description, but, if you like, leave Mr Tauber
        out, to what side of the door does it seem to you that we
        are looking in this photograph on the left-hand side of
        the page?
   A.   The photograph on the left hand is the outside of the door.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So if one were looking through the peephole,
        as it were from where the photographer is, you would see
        inside the gas chamber?
   A.   That is the -- the peephole is there where people on the
        outside of the door would have stood.
   MR RAMPTON:  And your view would be somewhat, but not much, of
        that focal length obstructed by this grille?
   A.   Which is shown in the next picture, where the grille is.
   Q.   Yes.  It is in the next picture, not very clear, but it
        is.  That is quite right.  If Leichenkeller 1 in
        crematoria (ii) and (iii) had been intended for use as
        disinfestation rooms, do you see any reason why Dejaco
        should have changed the way in which the doors opened from
        inwards to outwards?
   A.   No.
   Q.   You spoke of the gas type shutters at bunkers 1 and 2, and
        this is in connection with what you were saying about K4

.          P-197

        and K5, and you mentioned Dragon's testimony.  If you have
        that little bigger file, not very big file, K2, could you
        turn to tab 3 and look at one of David Olaire's drawings?
   A.   From No. 3?
   Q.   Yes, probably.  You know them better than I.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Drawing No. 3, which is said to be a drawing from memory
        done in 1945 of bunker 2 which has the macabre sign over
        the door "Disinfektion", and do you see a window he has
        drawn?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   What do you take that block on the window to be?
   A.   This is one of these gas type shutters.
   Q.   Does it correspond in size and appearance to what we can
        see if we go to Auschwitz now, those wooden gas type
        shutters?
   A.   The wooden gas type shutters which are in the ----
   Q.   There are photographs in Pressac we need not look at?
   A.   --- in crematorium (i).
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, once again we are now introducing fresh
        pictures, fresh evidence.  Had this been introduced
        originally, I would have brought photographs showing
        exactly the same gas type shutters with an entirely
        harmless use.
   MR RAMPTON:  This drawing has been in Professor van Pelt's
        report since the very beginning of this case, ever since

.          P-198


        he did it.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but not perhaps specifically pointing
        out that window as being ----
   MR RAMPTON:  Oh, yes.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Oh, it is, is it?  Good.
   MR RAMPTON:  There is a whole section on Olaire's drawings and
        this window, this particular drawing of this window.  In
        fact, there is another one on the next page, outside K5,
        right at the end of the building behind the shoulder of
        the SS person in the end of the building.  (To the
        witness):  Is that right, Professor?
   A.   Yes.  That one -- that is the reason I included that
        drawing inside the expert report.
   Q.   I understand that.  You remember I asked you to look, this
        morning, at the document which spoke of keeping a plan secret?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   There should have been attached to that another three pages.
   A.   Yes, I have this.
   Q.   Yes, dated 16th December 1942; it is a report from
        somebody called Heinrich Kinner who is an SS
        Untersturmfuhrer.  My Lord, before I turn to this
        document, I will explain the reason I introduce you to the
        re-examination.  The whole of Mr Irving's thesis may or
        may not be a relevant thesis, but the whole thesis is that

.          P-199

        there were no systematic homicidal gassings or killings,
        for that matter, at Auschwitz.  If this be a genuine
        document, it is of direct relevance to everything he has
        put to the Professor in cross-examination.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Right.
   MR RAMPTON:  You will see a translation.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have not read it, Mr Rampton, so I cannot
        tell you about that, but that is the way it is put.
   MR RAMPTON:  You will see a translation on the next two pages,
        Professor.  Can we use the translation?
   MR IRVING:  Before using translations, can I just once again
        object to the introduction of material like this which was
        supplied to me at 1 p.m. yesterday afternoon?  It is now
        used in re-examination.  This is not the way to deduce
        documents like this.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Where did it come from?
   MR RAMPTON:  I cannot tell, your Lordship, the source; the
        source wishes to remain anonymous for personal reasons.
        However, it is not a document that I have ever seen
        before nor anyone on my side.  It even surprised my
        scholars.  I do not know whether Professor van Pelt
        has seen it, because I have not been talking to him.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, I think you will have to lay the
        foundation, given that you tell me the provenance of it.
   MR RAMPTON:  Well, as an anonymous provenance.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It may be that he has seen it before, in

.          P-200

        which case, no problem, but otherwise, I think there has
        to be a limit on what one can introduce.  I have not
        actually got the German, so maybe I am doing it less than justice.
   MR RAMPTON:  I think we have the original German.
   MR IRVING:  If the court is to establish a direct between
        Himmler and the killings of Jews somewhere.
   MR RAMPTON:  No, that is not why I want to use the document at
        all.  I want to use the document because it demonstrates
        what was happening to Jews at Auschwitz.  That is of
        direct relevance to the cross-examination.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Given what you tell me about where it comes
        from, I think one needs to establish that it is on the
        face of it to be taken to be an authentic document.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving has had it since yesterday.  If he tells
        me he disputes its authenticity, then I ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Are you saying that, Mr Irving?
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, I do not know how long it takes the
        Defence experts to look at a document and establish its
        context and find out where it came from, and its pedigree
        and hybrid.  In this particular case, given the importance
        of the document, I would have no objection at all to it
        being introduced in three or four weeks time after I have
        had time to chew it over.  To have it sprung on me and to
        be sand bagged like this with a document of this
        importance -- unless they are going to rest their entire

.          P-201

        case on this kind of tactic, I think it is very dubious
        and I think this is a very proper case for your Lordship
        to say, well, disregarding merits or otherwise of this
        document, this is not the way to do this; Mr Irving is
        appearing here in person.  He does not have the
        resources.  He does not have anonymous people ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I do not think it has anything to do with
        resources.  I have some sympathy with the fact you really
        have not had very much time to consider this.
   MR IRVING:  That is the main point.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What I am wondering, Mr Rampton, because
        obviously we are near the end of Professor van Pelt, do
        you actually have to put this document in through him?
   MR RAMPTON:  No, I do not.  I will use it cross-examination
        when I get back to Mr Irving.  I have already told him
        that.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Then I think I would prefer you did that.
        I think there is some force in what Mr Irving says.
   MR RAMPTON:  Our side takes absolutely no blame for this.  We
        have been, as your Lordship may imagine with a case of
        this high profile, showered with material from all
        quarters of the world.  This came yesterday, no, I am
        wrong, Wednesday evening out of the blue.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  In a case of this kind, as you say,
        that is bound to happen, but I do not think it means that
        anything can come in, you know, without any real

.          P-202

        examination or opportunity for Mr Irving to examine.
   MR RAMPTON:  No.  If Mr Irving wants more time to think about
        it, that is fine.  Meanwhile I am not going to say
        anything about the person we got this from, but what its
        original source is, which archive it was in.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It has obviously comes from something, as you
        can see from document 6.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I am told that is a collection of documents
        I think in Walsall.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  There we are, Mr Irving.  So far, as it were,
        I am with you.  I am certainly going to give you time to
        think about it.
   MR IRVING:  Thank you, my Lord.
   MR RAMPTON:  I have finished my re-examination, my Lord.  It is
        25 to 4.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have no questions myself, Professor van
        Pelt.  You thank you very much indeed.
   MR RAMPTON:  If it is necessary to release him, my Lord, could
        he be released?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  Are you released.  I am sure it will
        not happen, but if it were to happen we will let you know
        if we would like you to come back. I have no reason to
        suppose that is going to happen.
                  I was going to possible ask Professor van Pelt
        about this, but I think it may be better done another
        way.  Would it be possible for either of you, but I think

.          P-203

        the Defendants really are in a better position to, to just
        give me on perhaps a single piece of paper a description
        of how Auschwitz divides up between Auschwitz 1 and
        Auschwitz 2, Birkenhau?  I do not really have the basic
        geography in my mind.  I have looked at Professor van
        Pelt's helpful report.  It does not really tackle that,
        because perhaps because it is so elementary.  So would you
        mind producing a document?
   MR RAMPTON:  He is the expert.  I could do a diagram now but it
        would be wrong.  Before he goes, I do not know if he is
        going until the weekend or beyond.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is why I think it is better not to do it
        in evidence.
   MR RAMPTON:  No.  Let him produce a plan and we can agree it
        and use it.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let Mr Irving see it obviously.
   MR RAMPTON:  Of course.  I will give him a copy.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is all basic stuff.
   MR IRVING:  It should very much be an agreed plan.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, ideally.
   MR RAMPTON:  There is one in Leuchter but it is so hopeless
        that I think we ought not to use it.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Right.  Well, I do not think there is any
        sense at all in recommencing your cross-examination.  So
        we will adjourn now.  Is there anything else that needs to
        be dealt with at this stage?

.          P-204

   MR RAMPTON:  I do not think there is.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Monday we are having Professor McDonald.
   MR IRVING:  Professor McDonald, my Lord.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Straight off at 10.30?
   MR IRVING:  Straight off at 10.30.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is agreed between you both?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, that fine.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  After that cross-examination resumes.
   MR RAMPTON:  If cross-examination is to continue, I will say it
        now so that Mr Irving can think about, I am going to go to
        the meeting between Hitler and Admiral Hurty at Klessheim
        in April 1943.  I am then probably going to go Dresden.
        Then I am going to go back to Reichskrissallnacht.  That
        is as far as I have got in my planning at the moment.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Good.  10.30 on Monday then.

(The witness withdrew)

(The Court adjourned until Monday, 31st January 2000).


.          P-205

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