The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit//transcripts//day030.04

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day030.04
Last-Modified: 2000/07/25

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Taking all that in reverse order, and subject
        to Mr Irving and then you can comment if you wish, I see
        your point about letting more people in.  This court I
        think in the end probably accommodates as many members of
        the public as any court does, but it is never enough in a
        case of this kind.  But, yes, I think, subject to
        agreement with all those concerned, particularly the Usher
        who has done a rather excellent job of keeping things
        under control ----
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving has been sycophantic towards my
        solicitors, for which I genuinely and sincerely thank
        him, I do wish to say what a fantastic job the Usher has done.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think she has done a jolly good job because
        it is not all that easy.  But, yes, within reason I think
        we will try to accommodate that.  I am just wondering
        about the desirability of you and, if Mr Irving wishes to,
        Mr Irving, making what you might call the sort of public

.          P-25

        comments that you wish to make, as it were, before we get
        on to the nitty-gritty of the closing speeches.
   MR RAMPTON:  Your Lordship may well have rather, if I may say
        so without impertinence, a good point, because it does
        seem to me that when your Lordship has had a chance to
        look at the nitty-gritty, I am going to write the
        nitty-gritty first, and then what one might call the
        summary.  I would suggest that it may be advantageous if
        your Lordship's mental process is the same, because when
        you have read the nitty-gritty, then you look at the
        summary and you say, oh, he cannot say that, it is not in
        the evidence or it is an exaggeration or whatever.  One
        could get the long version to your Lordship, we will try
        to do it by Friday, but at any rate by Monday morning,
        take a day, because it will not take long to read as your
        Lordship is so familiar with the material, I can
        practically do it from memory now, and then look at the
        summary and then maybe read the summary on Tuesday, 14th.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, at all events whenever it happens, and
        it does not really matter whether it happens before or
        after the detailed submissions, my idea is that we might
        have the two final public speeches, if you follow what
        I mean, along side one another.
   MR RAMPTON:  Absolutely, on the same day.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  And probably on Tuesday.
   MR IRVING:  Not along side each other.

.          P-26

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Not simultaneously.
   MR RAMPTON:  I do not think that would be music to anybody's
        ears I have to say, but certainly on the same day.  It
        would have to be, I say "have to be", that is excessive,
        but it would be desirable to have a fixed day because
        there will be people coming from all over the world to
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Shall we say Wednesday, because I suspect
        that will get us most of the way through the detailed submissions.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, your Lordship expressed the desire I think
        to have the opportunity to ask questions on the basis ----
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, absolutely.
   MR IRVING:  When do you wish to do this, after the verbal part?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  No, what I am getting at is if we have two
        full days, Monday 13th and Tuesday 14th, I think we will
        be most of the way through closing speeches, I suspect, if
        you let me do a bit of reading beforehand.  Then on
        Wednesday, there may be a little left over, but Wednesday
        would be a good opportunity I think to make these
        statements for public consumption, which in the context of
        this case is legitimate.  I think in other cases it might
        not be.
   MR IRVING:  So, if I understood it correctly because there was

.          P-27

        some confusion on Thursday evening, by the weekend I and
        Mr Rampton would have submitted to your Lordship a paper
        version of what we intend to say?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If you can do that it would be helpful, that
        I think is what I said on Thursday.
   MR IRVING:  On the basis of which on Monday and Tuesday you
        will ask us questions, and on Wednesday we read out either
        in Mr Rampton's case his summary or in my case whatever
        I consider necessary of my speech in public.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  When you say I will ask questions, do
        not put the ball wholly in my court.  I am hoping you will
        submit something in writing, but will also make the points
        that you regard as most significant and then I can pick
        you up on them if needs be.
   MR IRVING:  My Lord, I am making further submissions, as
        Lordship is aware, of which of course the Defence have
        had a chance to answer, and it is only fair they
        have a chance to answer and say, "This be struck out,
        is not admissible, yes, this one is very powerful
   MR RAMPTON:  I would propose this, that we, with Mr Irving,
        does not need to involve the court, we make a date and
        time for exchange of the long versions, and also the
        summaries if they are ready by then, then we see
        there is any water between us, and it may well be that
        there is, either side may be something the other side
        not think they ought to be allowed to say, and your

.          P-28

        Lordship may also have some queries or questions of your own.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  As to timing, if you could do it by
        close of business on Thursday, even if it is not the
        final -- you could not?
   MR IRVING:  No, not by Thursday.
   MR RAMPTON:  I could not possibly do it by then.  I will try to
        do by close of business on Friday.  It will not take very
        long to read.  One reads quite quickly when one knows a
        case well.  I am told Friday logistically is optimistic.
        We will do the best we can.  We will fix that with Mr Irving.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I will not say anything about it, except that
        I think we ought to have speeches on Monday 13th.  I do
        not want a slip on that.
   MR RAMPTON:  A discussion about speeches?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The detail of speeches will start on Monday 13th.
   MR IRVING:  But they will not be public at that time?
   MR RAMPTON:  The public can be in court during the discussion.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Of course they can, but there is extra
        accommodation being laid on, as it were, for Wednesday.
   MR RAMPTON:  The only other question is, and normally speaking
        in a case like this when one has written a long speech
        which the Judge has read, even if one is not going to read
        it in court, it will of course be accessible to anybody

.          P-29

        who wants a copy of it, whether they pay for it or whether
        they do not, and there ought to be perhaps an embargo on
        the release of the long version until the discussion about
        the long version has concluded.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, without any doubt.
   MR RAMPTON:  That leads me to mention one other thing.  I am a
        bit of ahead of myself.  It is this.  When your Lordship
        comes to give judgment in the normal way the solicitors
        and counsel get a copy of the judgment a day before.
        Mr Irving does not have solicitors or counsel.  (A) it is
        not fair if we get it a day before and he does not.  (B)
        it is not fair if he gets a copy himself and my clients do not.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Oddly enough I did not think I have ever had it.
   MR RAMPTON:  I have.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  One has had cases with litigants in person,
        but I have never had this particular problem about how you
        deal with -- my instinct would be that Mr Irving does get
        it at the same time as your legal team get it, but that he
        is, as it were, strictly embargoed as to the use that he
        can make of it.  That seem to me to be the fair-handed way
        of doing it.
   MR RAMPTON:  That is all I am concerned about.  What I do not
        want is him getting it into the public forum before we do,
        if I can put it crudely.

.          P-30

   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I mention some things that perhaps should
        be done before speeches.  One is the Muller document.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, it is in hand.  It is being dealt with by
        Dr Longerich who is dealing directly with Munich and I
        think also with Ludwigsburg where it is thought there is another copy.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Bearing in mind how quick Munich was to
        respond on the other document, I would be hopeful that you
        would be able to let me have something this week.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.  This is more problematical because they have
        been given the wrong file reference.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I thought they had tracked down the right file?
   MR RAMPTON:  No, they know that it is the wrong one.  They
        think they have the document but they have got to find it.
   MR IRVING:  The problem with Munich is all that all that they
        have is a duplicated copy.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I know and that is why enquiries are being
        made of other archives, as I understand it.  That is
        fine.  Mr Rampton, the other thing, and it is the only
        thing that I think I need to ask you about is, I think you
        were going to give me a little bit help on what you might
        call the American Civil Evidence Act statements.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.  That is in charge of Miss Rogers.  We are
        just down to the one now.  The only one of the factual

.          P-31

        Civil Evidence Act witnesses we want to use is Rebecca
        Guttmann about the National Alliance which I have already
        cross-examined on.  Your Lordship can have this.  It has
        file C, Rebecca Guttmann, and the rest can be chucked away.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  When you say the rest, can I be absolutely
        clear about what can be chucked away?
   MR RAMPTON:  Everybody else in file C.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  File C or C1?
   MR RAMPTON:  I call mine C.  It has 425 pages.
   MR RAMPTON:  And it is called Defendants Witness statements
        I should think.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I now seem to have back the file I swore
        blind I never had.
   MR RAMPTON:  That is the one with the National Alliance
        material behind it.
   MR IRVING:  When you say you are using Rebecca Guttmann's
        statement, does that mean to say you are also using all
        the appendices to it, or relying on them?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is what I was going to ask.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, I rely on the material that she picked up at
        a National Alliance meeting in 1998 at which Mr Irving
        gave a speech.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you.

.          P-32

   MR RAMPTON:  To put it as neutrally as possible.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Right.  Is there anything else?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Thank you.  I think it was necessary to have
        this fairly short session.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, it was.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  So 10.30 on Monday 13th.

        (The court adjourned until Monday, 13th March 2000).

.          P-33

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

© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred. Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.