Irving v. Lipstadt


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

Pages 71 - 75 of 215

<< 1-5211-215 >>
    I have to at this point confess I am not expertise -- I do
 1not have the expertise to go into that amount of detail.
 2I have looked at the official edition and it is quite
 3clear to me that that is a diary.
 4 Q. [Mr Irving]     So if it is a diary, why are the names changed then?
 5 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     The official edition.
 6 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Well, I can think of all sorts of reasons.
 7At the moment I do not understand the significance of Anne
 8Frank ----
 9 MR IRVING:     Well, because he is emphasising there ----
10 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Please let me finish. I do not understand
11the significance of it having been converted into a diary
12if it be the case that the original was a diary -- sorry,
13into a novel if it be the case that the original was a
15 MR IRVING:     If your Lordship attaches no significance to the
16word "novel", then I will abandon that particular line.
17 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     My impression of the evidence so far is that
18you have dismissed Anne frank's alleged diary as being in
19its totality no more than a novel, i.e. a work of
20fiction. If I am wrong about that, no doubt you will
21disabuse me.
22 MR IRVING:     If your Lordship is going to attach importance to
23the word "novel", then perhaps we should look at precisely
24what the allegations are and the passages that are
25quoted. Can I just get the chronology straightened out
26because this is what the expert witness is, I think,

.   P-71

 1seeking to confuse.
 2     There are two important thresholds to be crossed
 3here. The first threshold that we cross is the
 4investigation by the German Government laboratory in 1980,
 5and the second threshold is the authoritative
 6investigation by the Dutch authorities which was a few
 7years ago. Now, the question is whether I heeded each of
 8these authoritative enquiries or whether I disregarded
10 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     And the answer is that you disregarded them.
11 Q. [Mr Irving]     Well, let us take it stage by stage. Before 1980, was
12I entitled to say that because the handwriting expertise
13said that the handwriting was the same the whole way
14through this opus and parts of it were in ball point ink,
15therefore, the whole opus was suspect. Was that a
16reasonable conclusion?
17 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No, I do not think it was because the parts that were in
18ball point ink were only stylistic emendations.
19 Q. [Mr Irving]     But if they were said by the father to be in the same
20handwriting the whole way through -- this is the point
21I am trying to make -- if he produced expert evidence that
22the handwriting was unchanged?
23 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Well, you would have to -- you would have to present me
24with the written evidence for the claims you are making.
25I find it very difficult to deal with it in the way that
26you are ----

.   P-72

 1 Q. [Mr Irving]     Well, you have set yourself up here as an expert on this
 2particular matter and now each time we come up with an
 3important ----
 4 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Let me try to give the context of this again, I am trying
 5to ----
 6 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Page 156, the criticism you are making,
 7Professor Evans, is of what Mr Irving said in 1993.
 8 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Yes.
 9 Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     That is the criticism.
10 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Exactly.
11 Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     There is no point, Mr Irving, in going back to 1980
12because it was in the late 80s, as I understand it, that
13the scientific evidence, so the Defendants say, emerged
14which established that these were authentic diaries. You
15went on after that to say that they were novels and that a
1613 year old could not have written such a document.
17 MR IRVING:     My Lord ----
18 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     That is the point that is made against you.
19 MR IRVING:     What exactly is said in this 1993 passage? Your
20Lordship has it in front of you. It is the indented
21passage here: "Are you aware that they have made a full
22report? I say: "Doesn't surprise me". This is a very
23selective excerpt. If there was any specific reference by
24me in 1993 for saying that the diaries in their totality
25are a fake, believe me, this expert witness would, surely,
26have quoted it?

.   P-73

 1 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     Well, let me quote 9th November 1993 broadcast. This is
 2video tape 207, and it is in English in tape 213.
 3 Q. [Mr Irving]     Is this in your report?
 4 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     No. This is in my response to your written questions, so
 5it is available.
 6 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Shall we try to find this? I would quite
 7like to find it if we can.
 8 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     My Lord. It is in my written response to Mr Irving's
 9written questions.
10 Q. [Mr Justice Gray]     No, I meant the original. Is it in one of the bundles?
111993? Where was the speech? Do you know? Was it in
13 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     It is rather complicated, my Lord. It is a -- yes, it was
14in Australia. It is not clear whether it is Australian or
15American. It is a version of a Danish television
16programme which is also broadcast in German on German
17Television, but there should be a transcript of tape 213.
18 MR RAMPTON:     My Lord, if your Lordship has got, I do not know
19what it is called, Evans 2, is it, the file Evans 2?
20 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Yes.
21 MR RAMPTON:     Behind tab 1 there are Professor Evans' responses
22to Mr Irving's written questions. On page 5 -- sorry,
23somebody has restamped it. Page 5 is the internal
24numbering of that document. At paragraph 9 your Lordship
25will see set out the history, as it were, for the
26genealogy of this extract in the report. There is a "7"

.   P-74

 1stamped at the bottom of the page.
 2 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     I do not know what you are looking at, but
 3I am looking at, I think, something different.
 4 MR RAMPTON:     Well, the document is dated 7th February 2000 and
 5it should be in the front of Evans 2.
 6 A. [Professor Richard John Evans]     This is the second set of replies to Mr Irving's written
 8 MR RAMPTON:     Yes.
 9 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Have I got it?
10 MR RAMPTON:     You should have. It should look like that.
11 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Sorry. Yes, I have. I beg your pardon.
12 MR RAMPTON:     In tab 1.
13 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Page 5?
14 MR RAMPTON:     Page 5, paragraph 9. Page 5 at the top, paragraph
159, it runs over to page 6 is the history of this
16particular extract.
17 MR JUSTICE GRAY:     Have you got this, Mr Irving?
18 MR IRVING:     I do not want, but I wish to make some comments on
19this. Your Lordship will remember that on November 4th
20when we had the pretrial review, I expressed grave
21misgivings about the use of edited broadcast programmes
22with all the, I will not say the chicanery that has gone
23into it, but all the clever cross-cutting and, unless we
24see the transcript of the whole programme or, at any rate,
25very substantial excerpts which are clearly indicative
26that nothing has been put in or nothing has been cut out,

.   P-75

<< 1-5211-215 >>