Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day028.11
Last-Modified: 2000/07/25

   MR IRVING:  Let me start off, before answering this question,
        would you consider it to be very tasteless for a German to
        offer a toast to Adolf Hitler in the presence of two
        English people?  Yes or no?  Would you offer a toast to
        Adolf Hitler in the presence of two English people?
   A.   I would not do it anyway.
   Q.   Would you consider it to be a matter of dubious taste?
   A.   You know I would say ----
   Q.   Can you answer?
   A.   I answer, just now I am answering.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  He did answer.  He said he would not think it
        was very -- he thought it would be rather tasteless in any
        event, whether there were English people present or not.
   MR IRVING:  In other words, the word "tasteless" was
        appropriate.  Thank you, my Lord.
   A.   And if ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, no, let us move on.
   A.   If I regard these two, no, excuse me, my Lord.  If
        I regard the two persons who were there, and I would have
        been Althans if I can, then I would not have the problem
        to do this toast.
   MR IRVING:  Right, now will you answer?
   A.   This tasteless toast.
   Q.   Will you now answer my previous question?  Is it evident
        from the diary that I did not join in the toast?

.          P-99



   A.   It is not evident.  "All rose, toasted.  I had no glass as
        I do not drink".  I do not know.
   Q.   If one has no glass and one does not drink, how can one
        toast someone?  Will you now answer my question?  Is it
        evident from the diary that I did not join in the toast?
   A.   I really cannot say.
   Q.   OK.  You cannot say or you will not say?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, that is unnecessary.
   MR IRVING:  Will you accept that it is likely that by virtue of
        the fact that I recorded this incident in my diary I found
        it distasteful?
   A.   You did not say, you did not write it, and you are an
        admirer, to a degree, of Adolf Hitler and Tony Hancock,
        the same.  We saw the video where he had this accruals(?)
        of Adolf Hitler, so why not for you?
   Q.   The video of the accruals of Adolf Hitler, what is this?
   A.   In the video we saw Tony Hancock distributing or showing
        accruals of Adolf Hitler, and we know of his record that
        he is somehow dealing with National Socialism.  He was
        there, you both English persons were there, and I can
        allude to the others there, Ingrid Weckert, a very
        anti-Semitic, you know, person.  By the way, Ingrid
        Weckert should have been on this list because she was very
        active in the Gesinnungsgemeinschaft, just to mention that.
   Q.   Is it evident from this list that I have written down that

.          P-100



        most of the name are unknown to me and that I wrote it
        down as a curiosity to know who was present at this
        dinner?
   A.   You know Ingrid Weckert, it was shown by the ----
   Q.   Was that the question that I asked?
   A.   --- cross-examinations -- yes.  It is part of the answer
        that you know a lot of these people.
   Q.   Do I know all of the people?
   A.   That I do not know.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Let us go through them.
   MR IRVING:  Yes.
   A.   Through them.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Staglich.
   MR IRVING:  Are you suggesting that the fact that I wrote down
        this name on the list is evidence that I knew Mr Staglich?
   A.   I think you may have known Staglich at that period.  You
        know Althans.  You know Philipp.  You know Huffgoes very
        much.  This we viewed of your cassette.  You know Ingrid
        Weckert.  You alluded to this during the cross- examination
        of Professor Evans.  You know Professor Schracker.
        Schracker, I have to say did ----
   Q.   On what basis do you think I know Professor Schracker?
        Have you seen any ----
   A.   Because he did a brilliant book on him, on David Irving,
        the later days, and he was there in the audience where you
        were there the next day.

.          P-101



   Q.   When did Professor Schracker write this book on me?
   A.   Oh, you do not know?
   Q.   No, when was this?
   A.   A praising book to you -- in the last years.  Oh,
        wonderful!  I give it to you.
   Q.   I am flattered to know this, but are you suggesting that
        at this time or at any time I have had any correspondence
        or dealings with Professor Schracker at all?
   A.   You met in the same Congress.  He did a piece, he did a
        statement so far all the sources shows me at this very
        meeting the other day and Franco Griesch is the ----
   Q.   Let us stay with Schracker for a moment.  Have you seen
        any correspondence between me and Schracker?
   A.   No, no, not correspondence.
   Q.   Is he mentioned in my diary apart from this list?
   A.   No.
   Q.   Arnold Freulich, have you seen any correspondence between
        me and him?
   A.   I do not know.
   Q.   Daniel Konekt, have you seen any correspondence between me
        and him?
   A.   Yes, he is the buddy of, if I may say so, of Althans.
   Q.   Yes, but have you seen any correspondence between me and him?
   A.   No.
   Q.   The fact ----

.          P-102



   A.   You mentioned Daniel Konekt a lot of times in your diary.
   Q.   Leota Fontiss -- in what connection have I mentioned
        him, having contact with him or ----
   A.   Yes, with Daniel, you did the same tour to Strasbourg.
        That was before.
   Q.   What is Daniel Konekt?  Is he a chauffeur or what?  I do
        not know.
   A.   Look at your diaries.
   Q.   You are the expert.  You are telling us these people
        are  ----
   A.   Yes, I say look at your diaries, you know.
   Q.   Do you remember at the beginning of this cross-examination
        I showed you a list of 6,500 names?
   A.   Yes, I figured out three of them as noted in this, with
        respect to these whole endeavour.  We can go to this list.
   Q.   Loeta Fontiss, do you ----
   A.   I do not know.
   Q.   H Forster?
   A.   I do not know.
   Q.   In other words, most of the people on this list I have no
        idea who they are, do you agree?
   A.   No.
   Q.   You do agree?
   A.   I cannot, so how many are on this list, it is 18 and half
        of them you know, Staglich, Althans, Philipp,
        Huffgoes  ----

.          P-103



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Don't let us go through them all over again.
   MR IRVING:  No, no.
   A.   --- Weckert, Schracker, Franco Grietsch, Hancock, that is
        eight, nine, and Daniel Konekt, so ----
   Q.   Will you turn to page 46 and you see the diary entry for
        April 22:  "Headache all day, aspirin at breakfast.  I
        had fixed at his request an interview over breakfast with
        Judge Staglich".  Does this imply to you that I do not
        know who Judge Staglich is, and this is probably my first
        ever meeting with him, my only ever meeting with him?  And
        I say, "I can fit you in at breakfast"?
   MR RAMPTON:  I do not understand that because if they had
        dinner on the 20th, it was not the first time they had met
        two days later at breakfast.  I do not follow it.
   MR IRVING:  Professor Funke, do you appreciate (which
        Mr Rampton apparently does not) the difference between
        meeting somebody at a dinner when somebody is 24 seats
        away down the table and shaking hands with them and having
        an earnest discussion with them?  Is there a difference,
        in your opinion?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving -----
   MR IRVING:  I am trying to get answers from this witness but
        with ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- the picture of 24 people at dinner
        sitting in a line seems to me to be rather illustrative of
        the way in which you are approaching this.

.          P-104



   MR RAMPTON:  Particularly since it is only 19 and not 24.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think it says 24 actually.
   MR RAMPTON:  Does it?  Oh.
   MR IRVING:  Professor Funke, have you attended large dinner
        parties where you have not the faintest notion who the
        rest of the guests are, yes or no?
   A.   Yes, of course.
   Q.   This breakfast invitation with Staglich, who is one of the
        people on the list, on April 22, is that an indication
        that I have fitted him in at breakfast and said, "Well,
        come and see me at breakfast" and that I never saw him again?
   A.   I did not get your point.
   Q.   Judge or not.  I mean, we are trying to establish how
        intense, to use the word, my connections with this judge
        or ex judge were.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Well, again this is a good example.  Put your
        case.  Are you really saying that you only encountered
        Staglich ----
   MR IRVING:  On this one occasion.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  --- once at a dinner party when you did not
        know he was there and on a second occasion when you fitted
        him in for an interview over breakfast?
   MR IRVING:  Let me put it like this to the witness.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Is that your case?  If it is your case, fine.
   MR IRVING:  Professor Funke, will you agree that the evidence

.          P-105



        is that I had only one meaningful encounter with
        Dr Staglich or Judge Staglich when I fitted him in for a
        breakfast appointment on this day, on April 22nd, and that
        you have not seen any evidence to the contrary?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No.  It is not a question of whether he has
        seen any evidence; it is a question of what you say the
        position is, Mr Irving.  There is a difference.  Are you
        saying that there were just those two occasions when you
        even spoke to the man?
   MR IRVING:  Yes, of course.  That is precisely what I am
        putting to the witness.  I appreciate the witness is very
        tired, but I would like answers.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  What is the answer Professor Funke?  Only saw
        him twice?
   A.   I see what I see, and these are the references.
   MR IRVING:  A meaningful encounter?
   A.   And I saw the videos and there was Staglich in Hagenau and
        this was way before and, of course, there were 80 people
        in Hagenau or 100, and the literature shows that all the
        late 80s, Staglich was one of the prominent along with Uda
        Valendi, so there is a high probability that you know him.
   Q.   From this same consensus of opinion of the social
        scientists, is that where this probability comes from or
        is it from any documents that you have seen?
   A.   I do not answer this question.
   Q.   I am sorry?

.          P-106



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  He is not answering the question and I am not
        going to say he must.
   MR IRVING:  In other words, there is no evidence.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving ----
   MR RAMPTON:  No, I am sorry.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, Mr Rampton?
   MR RAMPTON:  I am sorry, it just will not do.  There is a long
        entry, for example, for December '89 -- this is not from
        the red RWE files but from the diary files -- of a letter
        from Mr Irving to Staglich dated, the diary entry, I am
        sorry, I do not know the date, it must be the last day of
        November, in fact, or something like that.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It had better wait re-examination so that we
        know what the date is.
   MR RAMPTON:  It is villainous, in my submission -- I use that
        word deliberately -- for Mr Irving to propose that he has
        had no meaningful contact with Staglich in order to
        mislead the witness and, perhaps, indirectly the court
        when I see from his diary a long German letter to
        Dr Staglich a whole year earlier.
   MR IRVING:  Saying precisely what?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It may be, Mr Rampton, if I may suggest it,
        that Staglich might be an example of somebody who it would
        be, in the light of the way Mr Irving puts his case, who
        might be added as another of the sections in one of these RWE files.

.          P-107



   MR RAMPTON:  He might be, it might be that it is difficult.  To
        trawl a haystack like that is quite hard.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, you must be appreciating that
        I must have you put your case in relation to these
        witnesses ----
   MR IRVING:  I thought I had put it more clearly than I did,
        that I had had no meaningful contacts with Mr Staglich.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  You did eventually, yes, and I would like you
        to do that with the others and not take time, I think, on
        individual paragraphs of the report, although there may be
        some important ones.
   MR IRVING:  I guarantee we will finish within 30 minutes from
        2 o'clock, I will have finished with all the other
        numbers, all the other names, and this is the way to do
        it.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Very well.  2 o'clock.

(Luncheon adjournment until 2.00 p.m.)

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