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.
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
Home · Site Map · What's New? · Search Nizkor