Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Statement of Mark David Bateman: Electronic Edition, by Mark David Bateman

Table of Contents
<< GQ >>

H. Eye witnesses

  • Rudolf pages 41-173
  • Van Pelt pages 97-125
  • Judgment 13.74, 13.77
  • Libson paragraphs 31-36
  • Bateman paragraphs 42-44
Rudolf has no relevant expertise for a general discussion about the validity of eye-witness evidence. It should be noted that Irving made strenuous attacks upon the eye-witness evidence throughout the trial: there is no new material in this section.
Van Pelt's original report at trial set out the evidence as it emerged, using original sources, which could not, or were unlikely to, have been cross-contaminated (see new report, page 99; this is summarised in the Defendants' Statement of Case, Section 2.1). The eye-witness evidence was part of the overall evidence, which converged to support the conclusions found by the judge.
The bare assertions by Rudolf that the eye-witnesses were wrong about the crematoria, in terms of the coke consumption and/or whether or not crematoria produce smoke and flames, are dealt with fully by Van Pelt at pages 101-116. The assertion that open funeral pyres cannot be ignited using liquid are shown to be wrong: that method was used in the burning of corpses on Dresden's Altmarkt after the Allied bombing in February 1945, as   retold by Irving in his book The Destruction of Dresden). As for the specific attack on Höss, which was pursued by Irving at trial, see Van Pelt pages 117-125.
<< GQ >>