Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day022.01 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Thursday, 17th February 2000 Before: MR JUSTICE GRAY B E T W E E N: DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING Claimant -and- (1) PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED (2) DEBORAH E. LIPSTADT Defendants The Claimant appeared in person MR RICHARD RAMPTON Q.C. (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Defendants MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Davenport Lyons) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant Penguin Books Limited MR ANTHONY JULIUS (of Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant Deborah Lipstadt (Transcribed from the stenographic notes of Harry Counsell & Company, Clifford's Inn, Fetter Lane, London EC4 Telephone: 020-7242-9346) (This transcript is not to be reproduced without the written permission of Harry Counsell & Company) PROCEEDINGS - DAY TWENTY-TWO . P-1 (Day 22. 10.35 a.m. Thursday, 17th February 2000. Professor Evans, recalled. Cross-Examined by Mr Irving, continued.) MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving? MR IRVING: May it please the court. My apologies for this late start. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is quite all right. MR IRVING: My Lord, today we will certainly advance to the end of 1942 and I will certainly finish on Monday. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Good. MR IRVING: So that is the target that I have set. Professor Evans, good morning. A.Good morning. Q.Would you please go to page 306 of your report? If we could just before that go briefly to page 302 on paragraph 4? It is a minor point but we will take in our stride. You criticise on line 4 of paragraph 4 that "Irving all too often provides inaccurate references or no source references at all". A.Yes. Q.Now, on the facing page on the bottom you have quoted three documents from the Public Records Office, Foreign Office, archives? A.Yes. Q.Did you find those yourself or were they from my discovery . P-2 or from my ---- A.These were found by one of my researchers in the Public Record Office. Q.In the Public Record Office. A.Where there are documents that I found in your discovery, I have said so. Q.So they made no use of the identical documents in my discovery provided to your solicitors then or of the reference numbers that I gave in the footnotes of my books? A.No, we went straight to the Public Record Office. Q.How did they know which of these tens of thousands of files to look in if it was not from the source references I gave in the book? A.That was, I presume, how we knew. Q.We now advance to page 306. You, of course, have strong criticism ---- A.If I may just add to that, that I think these concern British Ambassadorial reports, that is right, and I note at the top of page 301 that you footnote those reports. Q.Yes, thank you. In other words, I give sufficient references for you and your research to find documents like that? A.In some instances, yes, in some instances you do not. Q.Yes, well, we will come to those instances later on. I do not think it is enormously important, but one or two I am . P-3 going to pick off like a sniper. You have general criticism of a lady called Ingrid Weckert. You consider that her work is anti-semitic and that she is a neo-Nazi, and these are reasons why one should not use her, is that right? A.She is not a serious historian. Her work is anti-semitic propaganda. Q.I do not want to labour the point, but we had a discussion several days ago, you may remember, in which I asked you do revisionists ever turn up anything useful? Do they ever do any useful research or would you totally ignore the body of evidence the revisionists provide? A.I would ignore it unless ---- Q.Ignore it? A.--- I mean, unless you count yourself as a revisionist. Q.This was going to be my -- well anticipated. Do you consider me to be a revisionist whom you would ignore the work I do? A.That is what you call yourself. I mean, I have said repeatedly that you have turned up in the course of your career a number of documents of varying value, but some are valuable. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are slightly missing the point on Ingrid Weckert, are we not? I think the point that Professor Evans makes (and you may want to deal with this) is that she is, as he describes her, not a serious historian but . P-4 an anti-semitic propagandist and you cite her seven times in, is it Goebbels -- yes, Goebbels. MR IRVING: My Lord everyone is anticipating very well what I am about to ask this morning. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Except me. MR IRVING: I was going to get on to this. At the beginning of paragraph 6 on page 306, you tend to talk a great deal about the book by Ingrid Weckert? A.Yes. Q.Now, why do you do this? Is there any evidence at all that I have had the book or I that I have used the book or that I have relied on the book? A.Yes, there is. Q.What is this book then? A.There is a -- in a number of my footnotes ---- Q.Are you referring to footnote 162? A.154 and 160. Q.Yes. A.And ---- Q.Is that a book? A.And 158 and 162, and I understand that these are articles which were put together then to make a book. Q.You reference the actual book on footnote 159, is that right? A.That is right, yes. Q.Is there any evidence whatsoever that I have had that book . P-5 or used that book or relied on that book in any degree? A.Yes, because in footnote -- I mean, you are really splitting hairs here, Mr Irving ---- Q.No, I am talking about your paragraph No. 6. A.If you will allow me to answer the question, please? It is only two minutes into this and you are already interrupting me, Mr Irving. As I have said, you have in your discovery, in the documents you made available to the Defence, some articles by Ingrid Weckert with pencil margin lines, presumably by yourself. These articles went together to form a book, though that, I mean, the articles in the book are, essentially, the same thing. Q.I think it would be useful if we, therefore, have a look at this article that I am supposed to have done with the alleged pencil lines on it. It is in bundle H1 (vi). Do you have that? A.I do not have that here. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Before you do, Mr Irving, can I be clear why we are doing this? Is it to show that she is not an anti-Semitic propagandist? MR IRVING: No, my Lord, it is because I have repeatedly been accused in this report of relying on an inaccurate book and of drawing pencil marks in an article to indicate that I have relied on the article. First of all, we are dealing with the book. I have asked him to say, is there any evidence at all that I have even had the book in my . P-6 possession and, of course, there is not. So everything he says about the book is totally irrelevant. A.I am sorry, Mr Irving. I have already explained twice why it is not irrelevant. MR JUSTICE GRAY: He says, Mr Irving -- he may be wrong, but what he says is that the articles you do quote or cite are really regurgitated in the book. Is that what you are saying, Professor Evans? I do not know whether it is right or wrong. MR IRVING: Can I draw your attention ---- A.Yes, not simply regurgitated. MR IRVING: Can I draw your Lordship's attention to footnote 160 which is one typical example where the witness says: "The testimony of Naumann, discussed later in this Report, is taken over by Irving from Weckert, but only mentioned in her book". A.Not in the two articles by her which he has included in his discovery. Q.Will you ---- A.But this is also, Mr Irving, I mean, in your account of the Reichskristallnacht, you have concealed where you get your material from. You cite simply "the author Ingrid Weckert" or "Ingrid Wecker" without giving a precise reference to where your material comes from. If one looks at some of the more extraordinary assertions you make in your account of the Reichskristallnacht, they occur in . P-7 Ingrid Weckert's work and it is a fair inference that you have derived from her. Q.But you have stated specifically ---- A.I am not saying that you take over all of her extraordinary ideas, but you take over some. Q.To cut the matter short, can we accept, can we agree that you now accept that I have not used her book? A.No, you cannot. MR JUSTICE GRAY: He has just said the opposite. A.I have already explained three times that the articles are substantially the same as the book. MR IRVING: But you criticise me for what is in her book and I have asked you to agree that I have never had her book? A.Let us have a look at some ---- Q.This should be a matter briefly disposed of. A.--- let us have a look at some of the ideas. I mean, this is all extremely vague at the moment. Q.First of all, can you point to the pencil lines on the article to which you refer? A.Right, well, can you refer me to the page, please? Q.It is page 646 of bundle H1 (vi). A.600 and? Q.46. That is where it begins I believe. H. MR RAMPTON: It may be your Lordship will find it in L2. MR IRVING: H1 (vi) is the copy that I have used. MR RAMPTON: Yes. That may be, but what is it called? . P-8 A.This is Kristallnacht 1938, the great anti-German spectacle, and this may be taken directly from the journal and not ---- MR RAMPTON: I do not know. Your Lordship will find it in L2 at tab 6. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you very much. MR RAMPTON: Without the pencil marks, I think. MR IRVING: Without pencil marks? A.Without pencil marks. Q.What is the point of putting in a footnote 162, see the pencil lines, if we cannot see the pencil lines? A.You deny that there are pencil lines, Mr Irving. Q.I am asking you to show them to us. A.Could I have the original copy, then, please? Q.I have just given you the reference. It is H1(vi) 646. A.No, the original. Q.So we have now established that I did not use the book? A.No, Mr Irving. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have not established that. MR IRVING: I am not getting a clear answer from the witness, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am not sure what it is I am looking at in L2. Is this extract from the book or one of the articles? A.It is an article. MR IRVING: It is not the reference I gave. The reference I gave was H1 (vi) 646, which is the way the documents . P-9 were given to me? A.It is the same. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I am bound to say I do not really find this terribly helpful. The nub of the criticism, I will say it again, is that you have used and cited as a source for events succeeding Kristallnacht a lady who is alleged by this witness to be worthless as a historian and an anti-Semite. You have various answers to that. Either you can say I think she is a serious historian and you can put to the witness why, or you can say that the material you cited has no signs of any anti-Semitism, but really burrowing through the documents to see whether there are pencil sidenotes on an article seems to me to be a waste of time.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor