Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day015.06
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20
Q. And this permission was granted on more than one occasion?
A. To the best of my knowledge, it may have been, but my
memory is very vague on that part.
Q. Very well. Did we take two plates, or did I take two
plates, back to England by the same method for the purpose
of evaluation?
A. I am not sure what you mean by "the same method".
Q. In other words, without permission?
A. There was some question of whether or not permission had
been granted at that stage. Certainly two plates were
taken back to England and were copied and as soon as
valuation -- primarily because at the time we were very
concerned about the authenticity. The Sunday Times had
been caught with its pants down over the Hitler diaries.
It did not want to repeat the same thing with Mr Goebbels.
Q. I should really have identified you formally at the
beginning of this examination-in-chief by saying you were
acting on behalf of the Sunday Times at all times on this
occasion?
A. That is correct, yes -- in a freelance capacity.
Q. In a freelance capacity, but you were the go-between
between myself and Mr Andrew Neil?
A. Yes, after you had initially made the contact with him, yes.
Q. And the Sunday Times quite properly insisted on having the
. P-47
plates authenticated?
A. Very much so. That was our major concern at that stage,
to make sure that these were genuine.
Q. Yes. To the best of your knowledge, did we have these
plates tested by a glass company, a glass laboratory?
A. Yes. I remember quite clearly that they were tested.
I think possibly it was Pilkingtons. They were tested to
make sure that they were of an age and manufacture that
they purported to be.
Q. Did we have the emulsion of those photographic plates or
did the Sunday Times emulsion of those photographic plates?
A. Every possible test was done with a great concern about
the authenticity, and at no stage did we want to be seen
that we had got diaries that could be called into question
as to their genuine nature.
Q. Did you at any time see me handing the plates in a way
that might have caused severe damage to them?
A. Certainly not handling, apart from the occasion when they
were removed. You did not handle them in any way, but
I do think that the treatment on that night was perhaps
unwise, to say the least.
Q. Well, the elicit nature of the removal?
A. Sorry?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, can I ask this, did Mr Irving
explain to you why he brought two of the plates, or
. P-48
whatever it was, back to England?
A. Yes. It was clearly understood at the time that was for
the purposes of establishing the authenticity and, as I
say, it was part of the whole agreement that every check
had to be made to be certain that these were genuine
1940s
microfiche plates.
Q. Did you know in advance that he was going to do that?
A. Yes.
MR IRVING: I have no further questions, my Lord.
< Cross-Examined by MR RAMPTON, QC.
MR RAMPTON: I have very few. Mr Millar, can we just look
at
your witness statement, please? It is probably best
if
Mr Millar is given the Moscow file.
A. Sorry, could I ask you to speak up slightly?
Q. Yes, I am sorry. It sounds very discourteous, I was
trying enquire -- your Lordship has a Moscow file,
I think?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: I do not know. Has Mr Irving had this?
MR RAMPTON: Oh, yes. On Tuesday, I think.
MR IRVING: What document are you going to refer to?
MR RAMPTON: I am, first of all, going to refer to Mr
Millar's
witness statement which is tab 3 of C4 -- not that
one,
Mr Millar, I am sorry. I want you to have both. It
is
not your fault at all. There should be a file there
marked C4 containing witness statements.
MR JUSTICE GRAY: There is not, so can he have a C4? It is
. P-49
blue, I think.
MR RAMPTON: It is tab 3, I think, of that witness
statement.
This is very confusing, Mr Millar. It is certainly
not
your fault. That is your witness statement?
A. I have that anyway, yes.
Q. You have that anyway? There we go. You did not need
the
file at all. Can you turn to the second page of your
witness statement, please? In the middle of the page
there is a paragraph which begins "On one occasion",
do
you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. I am going to read it. "On one occasion, after the
archives for the day, to my extreme annoyance, Mr
Irving
told me that he had secretly removed two plates from
the
archives to show to Andrew Neil, the Sunday Times
editor
who was also in Moscow at the time. These plates he
had
concealed in a James Bond-style fashion outside the
Institute. I told him this was foolish and risked
jeopardising the whole agreement - an opinion he
thought
to be rather 'wimpish'. I insisted they be replaced
the
next day, which, to the best of my knowledge, they
duly
were."
Then if you skip a paragraph you see that,
so as
far as you were aware, you were not, I do not think, a
party to this directly, the same thing seems to have
happened with two more plates; is that right?
. P-50
A. That is correct.
Q. Yes. I only want to ask you two questions about that
paragraph that I read out. First of all, are its
contents
true?
A. Yes.
Q. You have to say "yes" because of the microphone.
A. I am sorry, yes, they are true.
Q. It is a recording microphone. Thank you. The only
other
question is this. What do you mean when you write,
"These plates he had concealed in a James Bond-style
fashion outside the Institute"?
A. He had, to the best of my recollection, prepared two
postcards which were slightly larger than the glass
plates, or of cardboard material, one of which
certainly
had a postcard picture on it, had wrapped the plates
in
these and left them on a piece of waste ground about
100
yards from the Institute.
Q. So it was clear to you that he knew that he should not
be
taking the plates?
A. Quite.
Q. Then only one other thing: now will you please take
the
other file, the one you were first given, which is
that
one, and turn in it to I think it is page A37? It is
in
the front tab of the file. At A36 you see what the
document is. It looks like a document from a memo
from
you and John Witheroe to the Editor of the Sunday
Times.
. P-51
It is dated 2nd July '92. Do you have that?
A. Yes.
Q. If you turn over to the second page, which is A37, and
look at paragraph 10: "We have also carried out our
own
handwriting and forensic tests on the glass plates and
microfilm. These are not conclusive, but all indicate
that the plates are not recently made and that the
writing
is that of Goebbels, although one of the tests seemed
to
indicate that they could have been copies. (We have
not
been able to do all tests because this would have
meant
destroying or severely damaging the plates. See below
in
case this becomes an issue).
"Asked how we got hold of two of the plates
for
tests, I suggest we fudge it by saying we have been
supplied with two plates and that they are now safely
back
in the archives".
I am not criticising you for anything, Mr
Millar
-- apart from anything else, you are not a party to
this
action -- but what was it that suggested to you the
need
to fudge?
A. There was nothing that suggested that we need to fudge
it.
If you see, it was hypothetical. The question is if
we
are asked. The point was that the Times, as I repeat,
the
Sunday Times was very concerned about authenticity of
these plates because of the Hitler's Diaries fiasco
and,
therefore, there was some concern that we should be
seen
. P-52
to avoid any mistake again, and the question was
whether
and how we had got hold of these, we were obviously
very
concerned at this time nothing had been made known
about
the diaries. We did not want any other newspapers to
get
wind of what we were doing.
Q. In particular, you did not want it to be known that
these
two plates which you brought back to this country via
Munich to be tested for authenticity that they had
been
nicked -- I know they were returned -- if I may use a
common expression?
A. No, actually. I am going to disagree. As far as I
know,
the two plates that were nicked, as you put it, were
those
that were put on the piece of waste land overnight.
Q. What about the next two?
A. Those were nicked and returned, and that had nothing
to do
with these -- we are talking about two separate plates
here and, as you will see from my witness statement, I
was
not present at the time the second two plates were
taken
back to the UK. I do not know the exact
circumstances,
I did assume that they were with permission.
Q. You assumed they were with permission?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Look back at your witness statement, will you, the
second
page? I will put it this way: do you know now,
Mr Millar, that they were not taken with permission?
A. Sorry, was that a question?
. P-53
Q. Yes, it was. I am sorry. It is difficult when I
am asking you a question and somebody else answers it.
Mr Millar, you do know now, do you not, that those two
plates that were brought back to England were not
taken
with permission?
A. No, I do not actually. I do not know that.
Q. I am grateful to Miss Rogers. In the Moscow file,
Mr Millar, could you look, in the light of that last
answer, at page A28 in the front section of the file?
There is a document whose format is not familiar to
me,
but I expect you will recognize it. What is it
exactly?
It is headed: "Catch gubby" -- is it some kind of
computer print out?
A. Sorry?
Q. Is it some kind of computer print out?
A. Yes, oh, it is. I recognize it. Yes, it is ----
Q. You do recognize it?
A. It is -- yes, I do recognize it. Indeed, it is an
internal print out on the Old News International
printer.
Q. So it is a Sunday Times document?
A. It is.
Q. Yes, and do you know who wrote it?
A. It tells me at the top. It was, without looking at in
great detail, if you would like me to take a minute I
can
do that, but it appears to have been done on Susan
Douglas's computer.
. P-54
Q. Yes. Maybe it was done on her computer, but where
would
show get her information from?
A. Would you like me to spend a few minutes just reading
the
document?
MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes of course, do.
MR RAMPTON: Well, look, just let us hurry up because I do
not
want to detain you longer than you need be here. Can
you
just read the third paragraph?
A. Actually, I would like to read the whole thing if we
are
going to talk about it.
Q. OK.
A. Yes, I am not familiar with it and, in fact, it is a
memo
that was composed by myself and Susan Douglas jointly
for
submission to Andrew Neil.
Q. So may I now read the third paragraph on page A28?
A. Yes.
Q. "Irving has taken liberties in our name in Moscow
'borrowing' two plates and taking them out of the
country
and will shamelessly take more. I would be very wary,
as
I am sure would John and Matthew, of giving any
impression
over there that Irving represents us in any way except
in
this affair. He is not above trading on our
reputation
for his own profit". Now, are those your thoughts?
A. They are the thoughts of Susan and myself combined,
yes.
Q. So you were -- I do not blame you for getting in a
muddle
-- then that the second two plates which were brought
. P-55
back here were also nicked?
A. At the time it certainly appears that I was, yes.
MR RAMPTON: Thank you, Mr Millar.
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.