Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day007.13
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   MR RAMPTON:  That, apart from some parts of the eyewitness
        testimony, this was my fear, and some parts of Professor
        van Pelt's report about other evidence, it is, I am

.          P-107

        afraid, two thirds of the evidence on Auschwitz.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.  I am a bit doubtful of that, but
        I appreciate there is an enormous amount left.
   MR RAMPTON:  Maybe that is a wrong estimate, but it is a large
        lump of the actual factual evidence about Auschwitz, what
        can be known of what happened there by reference to what
        Mr Leuchter said.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but there is no reason why you should
        not cross-examine on the totality of that.
   MR RAMPTON:  I just wanted to be clear.  I do not want to put
        my foot in the wrong ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  That is without prejudice to Mr Irving's
        entitlement at any point to say that that question is not
        relevant to the issues for whatever reason he may
suggest.
   MR RAMPTON:  Your Lordship may say it without being
prompted by
        Mr Irving, I dare say.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I might even do so, yes. Mr Irving, would
you
        like to come back?
                  < Mr Irving, recalled.
                  < Cross-Examined by Mr Rampton QC,
continued.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Rampton, may I say this before you
start?
        It would help me if one could, perhaps by some initial
        questions to Mr Irving, put into the context of your
case.
   MR RAMPTON:  A little bit of history?
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  A little bit of history and where one
pigeon
        holes it, if you like.

.          P-108



   MR RAMPTON:  Not wartime history.  This is Mr Irving's
history.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:   Eighties/nineties.
   MR RAMPTON:   That is right. Mr Irving, when did you first
meet
        Mr Fred Leuchter?
   A.   On a day in April 1988 in Toronto, Canada.
   Q.   You went, and I do not think there is controversy
about
        this, to Toronto, Canada, in order to give expert
evidence
        at the trial of Mr Hans Zundel.  Is that right?
   A.   I was residing in Florida at that time, writing.  They
        invited me to give evidence as an expert witness on
the
        general history of the Third Reich, I do emphasise not
on
        Auschwitz, and on Adolf Hitler's involvement in what
is
        referred to as the Holocaust.  I flew to Toronto on
the
        day before I was due to give evidence.
   Q.   So the answer to my question is yes, I think, is it
not?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   What was it, in case I have got it wrong, that Mr
Zundel
        was charged with?
   A.   There was a mediaeval law in Canada which made the
        spreading of false information a criminal offence.
That
        law has now been struck down by the Canadian Supreme
        Court.
   Q.   In respect of what statements under that mediaeval
law, as
        you call it, in what form was Mr Zundel charged?
   A.   If I remember correctly, he was charged with having
        published or disseminated a brochure called, "Did 6

.          P-109



        million really die"?
   Q.   Yes.  What was the topic of that pamphlet or whatever
it
        was?
   A.   As its title implies, it was questioning the
fundamental
        aspects of the Holocaust.
   Q.   Yes?
   A.   I had not, up to the time I arrived in Toronto, read
that
        brochure, but I was given a copy to read shortly
before
        the trial began, because I was going to be asked
questions
        about it.
   Q.   You did not give evidence, I expect, immediately upon
        arrival?  You did not get off the plane and into the
        witness box?
   A.   I gave evidence on the following day if I remember
        correctly.
   Q.   Does this mean that you had the opportunity to read
        Mr Leuchter report before you gave evidence?
   A.   Either on the evening I arrived, or the following
morning
        before I went into the witness box, defence counsel
for Mr
        Zundel gave me a one inch thick affidavit which was
the
        engineering report produced by Mr Fred Leuchter, and
he
        said, if you read this, you will find this very
        interesting.  Of course, I could not read a one inch
thick
        affidavit in the remaining hours, but I glanced at the
        summary at the beginning and I looked at the principal
        conclusions.  They may even have told me in outline
what

.          P-110



        the affidavit purported to conclude.
   Q.   For how many days did you give evidence?
   A.   It was over a weekend.  I think I was in the box for
three
        or four days, possibly three days.
   Q.   Over the weekend while were you were in the box -- I
am
        not suggesting there is anything in the least bit
improper
        in this because there plainly is not -- did you get a
        chance to read the inch thick affidavit?
   A.   I would have had a chance to, but I do not think I
did.  I
        think we went on an outing to the Niagara Falls, which
is
        close to Toronto.
   Q.   If I may say so, a good deal more edifying than the
        Leuchter report.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Can I ask you this? You were asked to
give
        evidence as an expert on the Holocaust?
   A.   On Adolf Hitler basically, and his involvement, the
kind
        of thing we have been discussing until now, my Lord.
   Q.   That is not what I am getting at.  You were giving
        evidence about extermination, of whether there were
really
        6 million Jewish deaths?
   A.   Not on the extermination, my Lord.  They were purely
        interested in hearing what Adolf Hitler's part in this
was
        or was not.  I could not give expert evidence on the
        Holocaust and I would not have been accepted by the
court
        as an expert.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I understand.

.          P-111



   A.   I was very closely questioned before the trial began,
        before my hearing began, as to my qualifications by
the
        court.
   MR RAMPTON:  May Mr Irving please be given a file?  Your
        Lordship may not have this in court.  I have the
reference
        here, D 9 (i).  (Document not provided)  If your
Lordship
        has not got it, which I do not expect you have, I will
try
        and find one.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I should have thought to bring it.
   MR RAMPTON:  It is a transcript of Mr Irving's evidence in
the
        court.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, I have it.
   MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, the page numbers are the original.
There
        are two page numbers.  I intend to use the original
        transcript page numbers, which are at the top left
hand
        corner of the page.  The page I am looking for is
9473.
        I think it must be that the Canadians numbered the
whole
        trial with consecutive page numbers.
   A.   Is this examination in chief?
   Q.   No, this is cross-examination by Mr Pearson?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Have you got it, Mr Irving?
   A.   I have it in front of me.
   Q.   9473.  It has the helpful heading "Irving CREX
Pearson".
        At the bottom of the page it says 327.  It is a recent
        file number.  Mr Pearson has put to you something -- I
do

.          P-112



        not think it probably matters what much except that it
        will have to do with the Holocaust -- about which you
say
        this.  I am reading from the top of the page: "At the
time
        that I wrote that in the 1960s, 1974 or thereabouts,
when
        I wrote that introduction, I believed, I believed
        everything I had heard about the extermination camps".
   A.   I think there should be a comma after the first
"believed"
        probably.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes.
   MR RAMPTON:  There is in my copy.  There should not be?
   A.   I think there should be a comma after the first
        "believed".
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It does not matter.
   A.   It sounds a little bit obsessive, otherwise.
   MR RAMPTON:  (Document not provided) "I believed everything
        I heard about the extermination camps.  I was not
        investigating the extermination camps.  I was
        investigating  Hitler.  Question: But you told us that
you
        did ten years of extensive research on the national
        socialist regime?  Answer: Yes.  Question: And you had
no
        problem making that statement, did you?  Answer:
Because I
        believed.  Question: Right.  Answer: I believed what I
had
        read up to that point.  I had not gone to the sites at
        Auschwitz and Treblinka, and Mydonek and brought back
        samples and carried out an analysis.  I had not done
any
        research into what is called the Holocaust.  I
researched

.          P-113



        Hitler and his staff.  Question:  You have done that,
have
        you, since?  Answer: I have not.  Question: You have
not
        done those things?  Answer:  I have carried out no
        investigation in equivalent depth of the Holocaust.
        Question: But your mind changed?  Answer: My mind has
now
        changed.  Question:  You no longer believe it? Answer:
        I have now begun to challenge that.  I understand it
is
        now a subject open to debate.  Question: But your
belief
        changed, even though you did not do any research?  Is
that
        what you are saying?  Answer:  My belief has now
changed
        because I understand that the whole of the Holocaust
        mythology is after all open to doubt, and certainly in
the
        course of what I have read in the last few days, in
fact
        in this trial, I am now becoming more and more
hardened in
        this view".
                  Mr Irving, what had you read that led to
such a
        volte-face during those last few days?
   A.   A few figures in a column of chemical tests.
Percentages.
   Q.   You had read a few figures in a column in Mr Leuchter
        report.  Is that right?
   A.   In the laboratory analysis appended to the Leuchter
        report.
   Q.   That evidence, I think I am right in saying, was given
on
        25th April, 1988?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   I think your diary entry for the 22nd, which is a
Friday,

.          P-114



        tells us this.  I will just read it: "Breakfast in the
        Carven Inn.  Hans Zundel and defence lawyer Douglas
        Christie came around 8.30 am for a briefing session.
        I told them I had read Leuchter's report on Auschwitz
and
        am much impressed".  What is the truth of this?
   A.   Yes.
   Q.   Which?
   A.   I beg your pardon?
   Q.   The two things are not the same.
   A.   Well, obviously, if the report is one inch thick and
has
        only been given to me either that morning or the
previous
        evening, I have not read the entire report one inch
        thick.  But I have read the relevant part they are
        interested in.
   Q.   The last entry for the previous day, which is 21
April,
        which is a Thursday, you said this in your diary.  I
do
        not know whether you are intending to publish your
diaries
        but you say this:  "Zundel says I give evidence
tomorrow.
        Read their lab reports on Auschwitz until late.  Bed
        around 11" p.m.
   A.   I do emphasis that I have not read those diaries since
        I wrote them 12 years ago, but that precisely confirms
my
        memory.  I read the lab reports, the percentages,
until 12
        a.m. There are quite a few pages of them.
   Q.   When you tell them next morning at breakfast time that
you
        had read Leichter's report on Auschwitz "and am much

.          P-115



        impressed", that is a shorthand way of saying "I have
read
        some small part of the Leichter report".  Is that
right?
   A.   I think so, the relevant part.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Because that is the guts of it, really,
the
        lab reports?  Is what you are saying?
   A.   They may have drawn my attention specifically to the
lab
        reports, but the answer to your question is yes.
   MR RAMPTON:  I am not suggesting that what you said in
answer
        to those questions on 25th April in the court in
Toronto
        were false answers.  What I question is this.  Do you
        think it sensible -- I will use a neutral word to
begin
        with Mr Irving -- for a man in your position, who has
        gone all the way to Canada to give expert evidence on
a
        different aspect of the case, to arrive at so certain
a
        conclusion on the basis of one part evening's reading
of
        one part of a report made by a man -- we will come to
his
        qualifications in a moment -- who, so far as you were
        aware at that date, was not known to history?
   A.   Was not known to ----
   Q.   Was not known to history as a scholarly discipline?
   A.   There are several questions contained in that
question.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It is all one question.  It is a long
        question, but I think it is an important question.
   A.   It is, but there are several questions contained
within a
        question there.  Would you break it up into
fragmentary
        questions, one question at a time?

.          P-116

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