Irving v. Lipstadt


Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 19: Electronic Edition

Pages 56 - 60 of 217

<< 1-5216-217 >>
    It is about Andrew Neil, the Editor of the Sunday Times,
 1are no friends of yours and mine'".
 2 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     That appears to be Andrew Neil speaking.
 3 MR IRVING:     What I am looking at is what those three dots
 4represent which is not just ----
 5 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Pause a moment. We will get to that in a
 7 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I take that to be Mr Irving's paraphrase and version and
 8gloss on what Mr Neil was saying.
 9 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     So the answer is yes, but it is a gloss?
10 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     A very heavy gloss, my Lord, I think, and it goes on to
11say, "And Andrew Neil found that these 60 foot long
12posters had annoyed these people, and they put immense
13pressure on him, and we know this because from all over
14the world I have been getting press clippings", and so on
15and so forth.
16 MR IRVING:     Where do the three dots end and the sentence
18 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     "'... are the great international'" -- "our old
19traditional enemies are", it is three lines up from the
20bottom of page 3 and the sentence resumes four lines down
21from the top of page 4, so that is, five lines are omitted
23 Q. [Mr Irving]     My point is, my Lord, that when you see three dots in the
24middle of a sentence like that, you are entitled to assume
25that a few words have been left out of a sentence, not
26that two words have been taken from one sentence and then

.   P-56

 1sentences later they have been glued on to.
 2 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Well, I think the point, and bear in mind we
 3are not really concerned with your criticisms of Professor
 4Evans, rather the other way round, but the point is
 5whether anything has been left out that materially affects
 6what is quoted. It seems to me that in this particular
 7instance what has been left out by Professor Evans really
 8makes no difference. Indeed, in many ways he might have
 9made his point more strongly if he had put in what he had
10left out, the reference to "the self-appointed, ugly,
11greasy, nasty, perverted representatives of that
13 MR IRVING:     I agree, my Lord, but my point is that if I had
14adopted that kind of abbreviation in a paragraph, and I
15had cut out three or four sentences, full stops,
16semi-colons and 86 words and replaced them by three dots,
17it would have been completely reprehensible and it would
18have been rightly pounced on by all the witnesses in this
20 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I would not have thought it was reprehensible
21unless it did some injustice to what remains quoted.
22 MR IRVING:     If I can put it another way? If I were an editor
23in a reputable publishing house and I caught one of my
24authors doing that, then I would sit on him like a tonne
25of bricks and say, "You cannot do this".
26 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Anyway, let us move on.

.   P-57

 1 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes. If I can just say, my Lord, the point that I make
 2repeatedly in my report is that the three dots, as it
 3were, are missing from Mr Irving's manipulation of
 4quotations. He does not ----
 5 MR IRVING:     Have you found one instance where I have not
 6replaced missing materials with the appropriate ellipses,
 7I ask you, Professor.
 8 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Plenty, yes.
 9 Q. [Mr Irving]     And you have referred to them actually in your report?
10 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes, yes.
11 Q. [Mr Irving]     We shall take that when we come. Can you give one example
12from memory?
13 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     For example, in your -- yes, from memory, your account of
14the discussions between Admiral Horthy and Hitler and
15Ribbentrop in 1943, when you actually mix up, when you
16transpose a phrase from Hitler from one day to the other
17in order to make him look better without any indication
18that you have actually done this.
19 Q. [Mr Irving]     This is totally different from the question I asked you.
20Have you found one instance where I left words or a
21passage out of a document and did not replace it with
23 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Exactly, then that is exactly my answer.
24 Q. [Mr Irving]     No.
25 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I am afraid it is, Mr Irving. Shall we turn to the
26pages ----

.   P-58

 1 Q. [Mr Irving]     Please do, yes.
 2 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     --- in question?
 3 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     It is around page 440. I think it is 444,
 4but I may be wrong.
 5 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     The point here is that you transpose the sentence
 6from ----
 7 MR IRVING:     We are not talking about transposition here.
 8 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Well, what we are doing is that you leave out the entire
 9gap, the entire enormous passages, between the discussions
10of 16th and discussions of 17th of April 1943, and
11you ----
12 Q. [Mr Irving]     I think you are deliberately obscuring the issue. This is
13not the answer to my question.
14 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I am sorry, I am not deliberately obscuring ----
15 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Well, let him give it and then you can, of
16course, make the point that it is not an answer to the
17question. Sorry, Professor Evans, carry on.
18 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Here is your -- you simply go straight on, what you said,
19"'They can hardly be murdered or otherwise eliminated',
20he protested. Hitler reassured him there is no need for
22 MR IRVING:     Are you suggesting I left material out of that
24 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     That implied, that implies, that there was no gap at all
25between these two sentences.
26 Q. [Mr Irving]     You know as well as I do, Professor, what the etiquette

.   P-59

 1for use of ellipses is. Is that correct?
 2 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Indeed, yes.
 3 Q. [Mr Irving]     That is not an appropriate place for the insertion of
 4ellipses. One has not left material out.
 5 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     You have taken a Hitler statement from one day and
 6transposed it to another.
 7 Q. [Mr Irving]     We are not talking about transposition.
 8 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     You have an left enormous amount of material out there and
 9given a completely misleading impression of the
10discussions which took place.
11 Q. [Mr Irving]     Professor, would you accept that if you quote one sentence
12from a report, by definition, you are leaving out the
13whole of the rest of the report, and you do not replace
14the rest of the report with ellipses, is that correct?
15 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It depends how you do it. I mean, for example, I could
16have done in my report, instead of having and indented
17quote with ellipses in, I could have had a number of
18separate quotes as you do here, separated by your own or
19my own commentary, but the effect is the same.
20 Q. [Mr Irving]     In the case instanced here it would not have worked, would
21it, because you said "the merchant banks ..." and then you
22go on using the verb of another sentence.
23 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes, I do not think that what I have left out, had it been
24put in, would have given what you said, another
25impression, a different meaning.
26 Q. [Mr Irving]     

.   P-60

<< 1-5216-217 >>