Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day008.26
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   Q.   --- it is the tables.  This is the bit of the report which  ----
   A.   The argument, I would say, rather than the actual bit of
        the report.  When you come away, having looked at that,
        you say, well, if those are the figures, if that is the
        argument, I am wow'd by it, I am impressed, because, as
        I said in my introduction, that is an exact science we
are

.          P-41



        talking about.  We do not have to read between the
lines
        of German documents and try to look for euphemisms.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving, before we go back to the Leuchter
        report, just so there shall not be any doubt about
what
        you have been saying since it came out, this is merely
one
        example, there are about at least a dozen, maybe 20,
if we
        turn to tab 20 of the third of these new files?
   A.   I can quite simply right now my position has remained
        unchanged from that day to this on precisely these
        grounds.
   Q.   Despite the fact that you have communicated
reservations
        about this question, in particular, to your friends,
        Mr Zundel and Mr Weber, a consequence of having
received
        critical reports from outside people?
   A.   The critical reports, if my memory is correct, were
        relating to Mr Leuchter's other rather superfluous
        calculations, like how many people can fit into one
square
        metre, and this kind of calculation which I thought
        detracted from the ----
   Q.   Mr Irving, be careful.
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   We are going to look at what Mr Beer, for example,
wrote
        to you in January 1990 in a moment.
   A.   Well, we are looking at a letter written 10 years ago.
        I am quite happy to be surprised by what I wrote then.
   Q.   No, Mr Irving.  In 1995 at Tampa, Florida, for
example,

.          P-42



        you were as categorical in your dependence on
        Mr Leuchter's findings as to the relative amounts of
        residues as you ever have been?
   A.   And I still am.
   Q.   Despite having known that they were rubbish?
   A.   I still am.  My position on the significance, the
global
        significance, of those discrepancies between the
residues
        is the same now as it was then and I will be
justifying
        this when the time comes.
   Q.   Can you please take the first of those files,
Auschwitz
        files, and it is in the same file as the Leuchter
report
        which we are going to come back to in a moment, and
turn
        to tab 5?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  We are leaving the Leuchter now?
   MR RAMPTON:  No, this is all to do with the Leuchter.  My
Lord,
        what I am interested in is not the objective value of
the
        Leuchter report, which I hope we need not go into in
this
        court -- we may have to -- but Mr Irving's treatment
of it
        in the light of the knowledge which he had and which
is
        itself contained in the report to which I am coming
back,
        but only for that purpose.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  His position is really very simple, is it
        not?  It is this particular aspect of the report which
        caused him to engage in what you have described as the
        volte-face, and he maintains that position.  So, in a
        sense, his position could not be more sharply defined.

.          P-43



   MR RAMPTON:  He knows it is wrong.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is the point, obviously, that needs
to
        be pursued.
   MR RAMPTON:  He knows there is a whole lot else wrong with
this
        report.  He knows, for example, the densities in the
gas
        chambers is wrong.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That may or not be an issue; I suspect
not.
   A.   The what in the gas chambers?
   MR RAMPTON:  The density of people in the gas chambers.
   A.   Oh, the density of people.
   Q.   Leuchter's assumptions about that are complete
rubbish,
        are they not?
   A.   Well, of course, this is precisely one thing that
        I challenged in my correspondence behind the scenes
with
        people saying, "He is wrong on this and we have got to
        watch that he does not" ----
   Q.   Have you ever made that statement publicly before
today?
   A.   No, because that was not the crucial element of the
        Leuchter on which I relied.  The crucial element is
the
        scientific findings.  As I say, chemistry is an exact
        science; you cannot get round it.  The courts are
        convicting people the whole time on the basis of
        chemistry.
   Q.   Yes, Mr Irving.  Sometimes they are.  It is not quite
as
        exact as you may think, I think.  However, that s
beside
        the point.  Chemistry is an exact science.  You get
small

.          P-44



        residues, or you call them insignificant, traces in
the
        gas chambers remains and much bigger traces in the
        delousing remains.  That is the position, is it not?
   A.   That is the position.
   Q.   You have known that all along?
   A.   Yes, and it has been confirmed by subsequent tests,
even
        by the Poles.
   Q.   Mr Irving, I know that.  They found that out and
Professor
        Markievitch found it out in 1994.  You know that?
   A.   He did not actually carry out the tests himself.  He
had
        others carry out the tests.
   Q.   Now please turn to ----
   A.   Tab 6 or tab 5 did you say?
   Q.   I think it is tab 5.
   A.   "Critique of forensic examinations".
   Q.   This you received -- I am just checking the date of
the
        letter you wrote to Mr Weber, 12th January 1990?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   You write actually to Mr Beer, from Florida, and you
say:
         "Dear Mr Beer, thank you so much for sending me that
        anonymous treatise on the Leuchter report"?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry, Mr Rampton, I was distracted.
        Where are you now?  I thought you said you were tab 5.
   MR RAMPTON:  I will try to do a little of bit of history
        first.  If it is not the way round, then it makes
sense,
        perhaps, to do it chronologically.  In tab 8, my Lord,

.          P-45



        there is a short bundle of correspondence, and I do
not
        know if your Lordship's pages are paginated?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, they are.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mine are not.  Then it is a letter which has
12th
        January 1990 on it, page 12?
   A.   Page 12, yes.  My Lord, this, of course, is not an
agreed
        bundle in any sense.  We are just seeing the documents
        that the Defence ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  If there is any document in it that you
for
        one reason or another challenge, then please say so.
   A.   No, my Lord, but, of course, it is just a very loaded
        selection of documents.  Of course, they have not put
any
        documents that would support my case.
   Q.   You have not seen this file until today?
   A.   Not until this morning, but I am quite happy to rest
on
        these letters.
   MR RAMPTON:  "Dear Mr Beer", you write on 12th January
1990,
         "Thank you so much for sending me that anonymous
treatise
        on the Leuchter report to which I wrote the
introduction.
        Incidentally, that is all that I wrote.  My
involvement in
        the project is no larger than that" ----
   A.   So why did you suggest that I had written the rest of
the
        report?
   Q.   I did not.  I wanted to know who had written the
captions,
        Mr Irving?
   A.   You wanted to know who wrote the report.

.          P-46



   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Irving, I know it is very tempting,
but if
        we chase every hare we are going to be here until ...
   MR RAMPTON:  And then you say this, Mr Irving:  "I agree" -
- we
        will look at the criticisms in a moment -- "agree, in
        fact, with many of your friends' criticisms and
ascribe
        most of the shortcomings to the fact that engineers,
like
        trade unionists, do not share the facility of
expressing
        themselves in English that writers and poets have.
Having
        said that, let me make a few general and specific
        points".  Then I need not read the first three
sentences,
        I think.
   A.   I would rather you do.
   Q.   I will if you want:  "In October 1989, a follow up
mission
        went to Auschwitz and brought back their findings in
video
        form and they will shortly be published as a video.
        Again I have provided a German spoken introduction.
The
        quality is magnificent and enables the viewer to see
where
        somebody, the Poles(?) has attempted to falsify
cavities,
        openings, etc. in the 'gas chambers' to make them
accord
        with eye witness testimony".
                  Now this is the sentence that I am
interested
        in:  "I think your friends' strictures about the 3,200
        parts per million argument are right, but cannot agree
        that you should automatically go right to the other
end of
        the scale 100 parts per million".
                  Mr Irving, that shows, does it not, that you

.          P-47



        knew perfectly well that Fred Leuchter's assumption
that
        the Nazis would have used a concentration of 3,200
parts
        per million to kill their victims was a nonsense?
   A.   No, not a nonsense, but probably not justified on the
        figures.
   Q.   Now ----
   A.   Not to go right to the other end of the scale.
   Q.   It goes down to about 300, I agree.  It does not go as
far
        as 100.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do I not need to see what the strictures
        were?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.  I am just going to show your Lordship.
The
        best way, my Lord, of doing this -- it is at tab 5, my
        Lord -- maybe the best way of dealing with this,
because
        it is quite important, I would suggest ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I can understand it is.
   MR RAMPTON:  --- that your Lordship reads the whole of it.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  The critique?
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes.
   A.   And this letter to Mr Beer, please.
   MR RAMPTON:  And the whole of the letter to Mr Beer as
well,
        I quite agree with that, because it will save time
when
        I then come back because I can ask ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do you want me to do that now?
   MR RAMPTON:  I think it would help before I start asking
        questions about it because your Lordship will only
find

.          P-48



        that I am jumping too far ahead.  It will take quite a
        little bit of time.  Whether your Lordship would like
to
        leave court for five minutes?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I suspect that there would be some who
would
        welcome that.  Perhaps I shall.  It should not take up
        more than five minutes.
   MR RAMPTON:  It should not, but it is not something to
skim, if
        I may say so?
   A.   I agree.  If your Lordship will also pay attention to
the
        marginal notes in the left-hand margin of the
critique?
        They are handwritten notes by me at the time.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, that, certainly.  Unfortunately, mine
have
        been cut off.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I think they have been cut off.
   A.   I can just very rapidly say at the first page it says
        "totally untrue"; the second page it says "vernouwi
        effect" which is something in liquid dynamics; the
third
        page says "this is a bit too pretty" -- these are my
        comments -- then "important" I have underlined and
then
        "no", I cannot read the next one.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  When did you put those comments on?
   A.   The day I received it, my Lord.
   MR RAMPTON:  Is there another "important" on the fifth
page?
   A.   Yes, I have no idea what they refer to.  I just...
   Q.   Against paragraph 7 in a bracket on page 5, I cannot
make
        anything of that.  Mine has a hole punched through it

.          P-49



        apart from anything else.  This small handwriting.
   A.   Well, I very probably then quoted it in my letter to
        Mr Beer because that is what I appear to have done.
   Q.   All I can see is an exclamation mark.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I will go and read it.  It will probably
take
        me between five and 10 minutes.
   MR RAMPTON:  Shall we come back at 10 to 12?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I will let you know.
                  (The court adjourned for a short time)
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I have read the critique and the letter
to
        Mr Beer.
   MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, I am grateful.  Then, Mr Irving, I
need
        only ask this, I hope.  That report sent to you by
        Mr Colin Beer, I think it was, at the beginning of
January
        1990 was, in fact, a demolition of the Leuchter
report,
        was it not?
   A.   He calls it a critique.  It is not an extermination or
        even an annihilation.  It is a critique.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Fundamentally flawed?
   A.   Yes.
   MR RAMPTON:  Yes, fundamentally flawed.  I will read the
last
        paragraph of his conclusions.  "The evidence of the
        Leuchter report when taken in the context of the times
and
        in full consideration of all other evidence is
consistent
        with that other evidence and together strongly
supports
        both the fact and scale of the massacres in the gas

.          P-50



        chambers at Birkenhau, provided the assumption is made
        that the gas chambers operated at a relatively low
toxic
        concentration."
                  That is the key to it, is it not, Mr Irving?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   If there is a low concentration used in the gas
chambers,
        a number of consequences flow, do they not?  First,
the
        need for a ventilation system, if any, is much
reduced?
        Yes?
   A.   Well, the ventilation system in mortuaries as
prescribed
        by the architectural handbook.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is not an answer to the question.

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