Irving v. Lipstadt


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

Pages 66 - 70 of 215

<< 1-5211-215 >>
    Were the results of these tests leaked to the German
 1magazine Der Spiegel in 1980?
 2 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I will accept your view that they were.
 3 Q. [Mr Irving]     Document No. 86 is a New York Post summary of what Der
 4Spiegel has announced. Do you agree that this states that
 5the finding is, on the second page, the result of the
 6tests performed at the Bundescriminalamtlaboratories show
 7that portions of the works, especially of the fourth
 8volume, are written with ball point pen?
 9 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     That is what it says, but this is of course is third hand
10information. It is a reporter who is reporting another
11reporter's view of a report. I think, before accepting
12that this particular reporter is giving an accurate
13account, I would need to see the original report.
14 Q. [Mr Irving]     I do not really want to get bogged down in this kind of
15maze. Can I just put it to you like this? Will you
16accept that, on the balance of probabilities, the
17Bundescriminalamt did carry out tests on the ink and came
18up with the surprising conclusion that portions were in
19fact ball point ink?
20 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It depends what you mean by "portions". I think that is
21the crucial point. My understanding, having read the
22summary of the forensic scientific investigations carried
23out on the diaries, in the introduction to the kind of
24official standard edition, scholarly edition, is that
25there were some small stylistic emendations in ball point
26pen, but that paper and ink and so on were all of the

.   P-66

 1diaries themselves were derived from the 1940s, i.e.
 2before the end of the war.
 3 Q. [Mr Irving]     How long has this been your understanding? Did you have
 4this understanding at the time you wrote your expert
 6 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Let me just see.
 7 Q. [Mr Irving]     In other words, is this knowledge about portions of the
 8diary being rewritten in ball point ink or whatever recent
 9or some years ago?
10 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Well, I have looked -- my knowledge or whose knowledge?
11 MR IRVING:     Your knowledge we are talking about.
12 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     My knowledge.
13 Q. [Mr Irving]     At the time you wrote this report.
14 MR RAMPTON:     Footnote 118.
15 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Thank you. Yes, The Critical Edition, 1989.
16 MR IRVING:     My question is, of course, if you were aware of the
17fact that these tests had been carried out and that there
18was this, shall we say, ambiguous finding?
19 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I do not think it is ambiguous at all, Mr Irving.
20 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Yes, I wanted to ask about that.
21 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It is quite clear.
22 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Professor Evans, may I put this question to
23you because then we can get on? Would it be an unfair
24reading of the report that you have just been shown by
25Mr Irving that it, in fact, far from confirming that it is
26a forgery, confirms that it is authentic because it says

.   P-67

 1that there are some sections which were added
 2subsequently, but by necessary inference is saying that
 3most of it was genuine and already there and not in ball
 4point? Not very articulately expressed, but do you agree
 5with that proposition?
 6 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Well, yes, and that is my understanding of the forensic
 7investigations which were carried out both by the Federal
 8German Criminal Office and by the Dutch Centre for War
 9Documentation, that the diaries were genuine, but that
10there were some small stylistic emendations, certainly not
11whole pages or whole sections, let alone the whole thing
12being fake or a novel.
13 MR IRVING:     Have I ever said that the whole thing was written
14in ball point pen?
15 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     You said whole pages are written in ball point pen.
16 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     You said it was a novel, Mr Irving, did you
18 MR IRVING:     The third version is a novel, my Lord. The third
19version is a novel with the names changed.
20 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     You did say in the Daily Mirror on 27th November 1979:
21"Many forgeries are among records, including the diary of
22Anne Frank". "The Anne Frank" -- another occasion in
231986: "The Anne Frank diary of which you have all heard
24is partly written in ball point ink, parts of the Anne
25Frank diaries are written in ball point ink".
26 Q. [Mr Irving]     Are you aware of the fact that the father of Anne Frank in

.   P-68

 1one of the libel actions obtained an affidavit from a
 2handwriting expert who testified that the entire diaries
 3were written in the same handwriting of the same person,
 4including, therefore, the ball point passages?
 5 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, I am not aware of that.
 6 Q. [Mr Irving]     Whether that is true or not, in other words, this
 7allegation that the entire diaries, or this finding by the
 8expert that the entire diaries were written in one
 9handwriting, was it not reasonable for somebody to say in
101979, as I said in the passage you just quoted, that the
11diaries were suspect?
12 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     That is not quite what you said, Mr Irving. You did not
13say they were suspect. You said they were fake.
14 Q. [Mr Irving]     Let us take it stage by stage.
15 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Let the witness answer first. You suggested
16that you were only saying that they were suspect.
17Professor Evans, do you think that Mr Irving went further?
18 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     I do, my Lord. He is saying they are a forgery.
19 MR IRVING:     Is that not a reasonable conclusion, if the father
20himself has produced evidence to the courts that the
21handwriting is the same the whole way through,
22graphological evidence by affidavit in one of these libel
23actions that the handwriting is the same and that the
24handwriting turns out to be partly in ball point ink?
25 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Mr Irving, you said in 1993 that the diaries were a novel,
26the handwriting was not hers, whole pages were written in

.   P-69

 1ball point pen, a 13 year old girl would not have the
 2nouse to write a document of that sort at all ----
 3 Q. [Mr Irving]     Professor Evans, can you stick with chronology ----
 4 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     This is a long time after the ----
 5 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Let the witness answer.
 6 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     This is well after the official edition had been published
 7in 1989. This is talking, what, four years after that.
 8 MR IRVING:     Can we stick to the chronology, please? We are at
 9present back in 1979 and 1980, right?
10 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes, and in my report, Mr Irving, I cite what you say in
111989, in 1993.
12 Q. [Mr Irving]     And it is very convenient to confuse the chronology, but
13if we sort things out ----
14 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     There is not confusing about that chronology at all,
15Mr Irving. It is quite clear what you say in 1993; you
16assert that it is, that it is a fake. It is a forgery.
17 Q. [Mr Irving]     Let us take this in stages. First of all, will you accept
18that the third edition written by the daughter of Otto
19Frank, Anne Frank, is written by her as a novel in which
20she has changed the names in her own diary into novel
22 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, the official edition published by the Dutch Centre for
23War Documentation is a diary.
24 Q. [Mr Irving]     Will you accept that the third eversion she has written is
25written as a novel with the names changed in novel form?
26 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     

.   P-70

<< 1-5211-215 >>