Irving v. Lipstadt

Transcripts

Holocaust Denial on Trial, Trial Transcripts, Day 20: Electronic Edition

Pages 16 - 20 of 215

<< 1-5211-215 >>
    You disqualify the Leuchter report in your view. I have
 1unjustifiable act of a responsible historian.
 2 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     You do not have to ask these questions. I
 3have already indicated that on Auschwitz -- I know it is
 4referred to in Professor Evans' report -- it does not
 5appear to me that, if I may respectfully say so, Professor
 6Evans' opinions really bulk very large. I think that is
 7really Professor van Pelt. So do not feel you have to ask
 8these questions.
 9 MR IRVING:     I would like to ask him purely then about one
10matter. Is it right that you suggest that the report was
11not admitted as evidence at the Toronto trial, and that
12this in some way discredits the report?
13 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, I cannot see that in my report. I say it was
14discredited at the Zundel trial in 1988. That is my
15understanding, having read some of the transcripts of the
16trial.
17 Q. [Mr Irving]     Was the report actually admitted as evidence of the Zundel
18trial?
19 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I think we know it was, do we not? We can
20move on.
21 MR IRVING:     The point that I am trying to make, my Lord, is
22that I have had considerable dealings overnight with the
23Canadian solicitors involved in that action who confirmed
24to me -- I just put the essential three lines of their
25letter to you. The solicitor Barbara Kulaska has written
26to me saying that the Leuchter report itself was not filed

.   P-16



 1as an exhibit for the sole reason that such engineering
 2reports are not generally admissible under Canadian rules
 3of evidence unless the other side consents.
 4 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I treat that with a certain amount of
 5scepticism. The evidence up to now is that it was not
 6admitted in evidence at the Zundel trial because it was
 7not accepted that Leuchter was suitably qualified as an
 8expert.
 9 MR IRVING:     My Lord, with the utmost respect, I have to say
10that I have a very large bundle here now which contains
11the actual transcript on that matter between the
12prosecution and the defence and the court in Toronto.
13 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Shall we put that on one side? I do not
14suppose Mr Rampton has had a chance to look at what you
15are referring to me at the moment. At any rate, let us
16got on with Professor Evans. I am not shutting you out
17from adducing that evidence.
18 MR IRVING:     I am prepared to make this transcript available to
19the Defence in this matter.
20 MR RAMPTON:     I have the transcript. I used it in
21cross-examination of Mr Irving. It is perfectly clear the
22judge would not admit Mr Leuchter as an expert.
23 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     What you have not seen is what Mr Irving is
24relying on from the Canadian lawyers giving an entirely
25different reason why.
26 MR RAMPTON:     I have seen it. There is a one page letter

.   P-17



 1I think in this new bundle.
 2 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     What I am suggesting is that Mr Irving
 3follows this up later.
 4 MR RAMPTON:     Yes, I agree. I attach no weight to what the
 5lawyer says at all.
 6 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Rather than now.
 7 MR IRVING:     Whether Mr Rampton attaches weight to it or not is
 8neither here nor there. In that case I shall put it to
 9your Lordship by way of submission later on.
10 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Would you mind.
11 MR IRVING:     At page 130 line 8 you say that my arguments derive
12from previous work from well-known Holocaust deniers, and
13then you mention some.
14 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes.
15 Q. [Mr Irving]     Professor Faurisson. . Are you familiar with the
16expertise of Germar Rudolf?
17 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I mention Faurisson there. I do not mention Rudolf there.
18 Q. [Mr Irving]     I can make this very brief. Can you accept that there are
19a number of other documentary bases on which I base my
20arguments, for example the air photographs as interpreted
21by a man called John Ball?
22 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It is clear I think that in the documents that I cite you
23do rely heavily upon Faurisson, whose work you did read in
24the late 1980s, as you recall in your diary.
25 Q. [Mr Irving]     Which works of Professor Faurisson do you allege that
26I read?

.   P-18



 1 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It was an article in your diary entry of 26th July 1986.
 2You wrote "Faurisson's paper on Auschwitz set me thinking
 3very hard." I presume that is an article that he
 4published or a paper that he gave to you.
 5 Q. [Mr Irving]     Are you suggesting that he is my only source, the only
 6basis of my arguments that I do not rely----
 7 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, I am not. I give that as an example there.
 8 Q. [Mr Irving]     When is set thinking very hard, as no doubt you have also
 9been occasionally made to think very hard, you then start
10looking at other sources to see how one should finally
11align one's own political or scientific or historical
12viewpoint.
13 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes. I say here that it derives from previous work by
14well-known Holocaust deniers such as Faurisson.
15 Q. [Mr Irving]     Would you call Professor Hinsley a well-known Holocaust
16denier?
17 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I do not think that these arguments, the arguments are
18derived -- you misuse Professor Hinsley's material in your
19work.
20 Q. [Mr Irving]     But you have here referred of course only to Professor
21Faurisson. Does that imply that he was my only source of
22any change of mind or new direction of my thinking that
23I may have adopted?
24 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     "Such as" are the words used.
25 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     "Such as", yes. You were familiar with the brochure, Did
266 million really die, by Richard Verul of the National

.   P-19



 1Front published under the pseudonym of Richard Harwood.
 2 Q. [Mr Irving]     You are saying I am very familiar with it. When did
 3I become familiar with it?
 4 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     You note in 1988 that you said in the Zundel trial in the
 5evidence you gave over 90 per cent of the brochure is
 6factually accurate.
 7 Q. [Mr Irving]     Have you also read in the diary that the Verul report was
 8given to me to read one day before I gave evidence, and
 9that I looked at it the same as you look at documents here
10in order to be able to form an opinion of it?
11 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I am saying you read it, Mr Irving.
12 Q. [Mr Irving]     Yes, but are you suggesting that I thought it out and read
13it and then used it as a basis for my arguments?
14 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     He cannot possibly answer that, can he?
15 MR IRVING:     I mean, the allegation, the suggestion, the
16imputation, from the witness is that I have read it and
17used it as a source when, in fact, I read it as an expert
18witness has to read documents that are put to him.
19 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     You just said you were familiar with it,
20Mr Irving.
21 MR IRVING:     I had sufficient familiarity with it on the basis
22of 24 hours study in order to be able answer questions as
23an expert witness. This is the point I wish to put to
24him. If the witness makes a statement like that, which is
25intended to create an impression, then I am surely
26entitled to rectify the impression.

.   P-20


<< 1-5211-215 >>