Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 7: Electronic Edition

Pages 121 - 125 of 199

<< 1-5196-199 >>
    But what about the use of ordinary type, bold type and
 1bold italic type.
 2 A. [Mr Irving]     Mr Rampton, the original version was in my discovery and
 3was available to your instructing solicitors. They could
 4have drawn this kind of comparison.
 5 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Mr Irving, please listen. In this document, as we see if
 6we look at page 15, leaving the capitals on one side, we
 7see four different kinds of type that are used. There is
 8first of all what you might call ordinary Roman, then
 9there is bold Roman, then there are ordinary italics which
10we see at the little words "table 3", and then there is
11bold italics, which is the paragraph fortunately that I
12want to read.
13 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
14 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Who made the decision to use those different kinds of
16 A. [Mr Irving]     Not I.
17 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Not you?
18 A. [Mr Irving]     No.
19 Q. [Mr Rampton]     So in the affidavit they have used these sorts of type,
20have they?
21 A. [Mr Irving]     I do not know. You have in the discovery the original
23 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Anyway, it was not you?
24 A. [Mr Irving]     No.
25 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Do you see the paragraph in bold italics?
26 A. [Mr Irving]     In the second column, the controlled sample.

.    P-121

 1 Q. [Mr Rampton]     That is right. "One would have expected higher" -- do you
 2see that?
 3 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Do you agree that whoever put that in bold italics thought
 4that it was an important paragraph?
 5 A. [Mr Irving]     I cannot see "one would have expected higher".
 6 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Paragraph, not half sentence. I will read it.
 7 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
 8 Q. [Mr Rampton]     "One would have expected higher cyanide detection in the
 9samples taken from the alleged gas chambers, because of
10the greater amount of gas allegedly utilized there than
11that found in the control sample. Since the contrary is
12true, one must conclude that these facilities were not
13execution gas chambers when coupled with all the other
14evidence gained on inspection.
15 A. [Mr Irving]     Yes.
16 Q. [Mr Rampton]     You must have read that?
17 A. [Mr Irving]     No.
18 Q. [Mr Rampton]     You did not read that?
19 A. [Mr Irving]     Not to my knowledge I looked just at the laboratory
21 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Does it not occur to you, Mr Irving, that, if in fact, as
22it is the case, Mr Leuchter has got history completely the
23wrong way round, then you can reverse the figures in the
25 A. [Mr Irving]     If you exclude extraneous factors, which you can talk
26about later on, the factors which you are not talking

.    P-122

 1about, about the fact that the "gas chambers" have been
 2freshly built, they were freshly poured concrete, they
 3sweat, there is a pronounced interaction between humanity
 4and hydrogen cyanide gas which would have led one to
 5conclude there should have been more in the so-called gas
 6chambers, but this was a degree of research that
 7Mr Leuchter did not go into. It has been done since the
 8Leuchter report. This is where I am in difficulty, my
 9Lord, because of course there had been ongoing research
10into this kind of controversy since then.
11 Q. [Mr Rampton]     This is my point, Mr Irving.
12 A. [Mr Irving]     Not by myself, I hasten to add.
13 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I follow that.
14 MR RAMPTON:     This is one of a one of a large number of
15absolutely basic school boy errors from an historical
16point of view, as well as some scientific ones as well.
17But from the historical and archeological point of view,
18this is one of the basic school boy errors in the Leuchter
19report. Fair enough, you are not Mr Leuchter and you did
20not write the report, but you made the decision to change
21your mind about the Holocaust, or whatever you like to
22call it about gas chambers at Auschwitz.
23 A. [Mr Irving]     On the basis of the forensic percentages.
24 Q. [Mr Rampton]     On the basis of absolutely no research whatsoever.
25 A. [Mr Irving]     On the basis of no research whatsoever; you are absolutely
26right. I made the decision to change my mind on the

.    P-123

 1percentages of hydrogen cyanide residues, the compounds
 2which were missing from the chambers where they should
 3quite clearly have been present.
 4 Q. [Mr Rampton]     No, they were not; they were present in smaller quantities
 5which is exactly what you would expect.
 6 A. [Mr Irving]     They were present in quantities that are familiar to
 7people doing the laboratory analyses. You guess
 8statistically meaningless numbers. The figures are so low
 9that they are statistically meaningless. They may be
10there from any external sources. They may be there from
11the cleaning lady. They may be there from there having
12been a regular fumigation. The quantities are so low that
13they are statistically meaningless; whereas in the
14fumigation chamber, you get a figure that is 1,050
15milograms per kilogram of cement, starting with the high
17 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Yes, Mr Irving, precisely, which is exactly what, if you
18know the very slightest thing about this topic, you would
19expect to find.
20 A. [Mr Irving]     I now know quite a lot about this topic, Mr Rampton, which
21I was not aware of at the time, and I am not prepared to
22change my position.
23 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Then, Mr Irving, it behoved you, as an historian, brought
24over as an expert witness, to keep your trap shut until
25you had done some proper research, I suggest.
26 A. [Mr Irving]     This is the negligence argument again, is it not?

.    P-124

 1 Q. [Mr Rampton]     No, it is not.
 2 A. [Mr Irving]     It very clearly is; you are saying I ought to have done it
 3and I did not.
 4 Q. [Mr Rampton]     No responsible person in your position would give that
 5kind of evidence to a court on the kind of research you
 6had, I should say, not conducted.
 7 A. [Mr Irving]     Mr Rampton, I did not give this evidence to court.
 8 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Let me finish question.
 9 A. [Mr Irving]     You just said I gave this evidence to the court -- this
10court or the court in Toronto?
11 Q. [Mr Rampton]     The court in Toronto.
12 A. [Mr Irving]     I not give this evidence to the court in Toronto.
13 Q. [Mr Rampton]     That is the starting point, Mr Irving.
14 A. [Mr Irving]     This was the evidence that Mr Leuchter gave.
15 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Let me finish my question, Mr Irving, please -- unless
16that so-called historian had an ulterior motive for diving
17into a sea on which he had no knowledge, is that right?
18 A. [Mr Irving]     Diving into a sea is rather literally. Can you state
19specifically what you are trying to say?
20 Q. [Mr Rampton]     Venturing on to a territory of history, an area of
21history, of which he had absolutely no knowledge whatever,
22making world-shattering statements from the witness box in
23Canada without having done any research suggests, does it
24not, Mr Irving, that you had an ulterior motive for doing
26 A. [Mr Irving]     

.    P-125

<< 1-5196-199 >>