Holocaust Denial on Trial, Statement of Mark David Bateman: Electronic Edition, by Mark David Bateman

Table of Contents
<< Summary regarding Rudolf ...

The Witness statement of Zoe Polanska-Palmer.

97.The application notice states the Claimant could not have produced Zoe Polanska Palmer at the trial, because the Claimant had no knowledge of her until after the trial. It should be noted, however, that the Claimant did not adduce evidence from any eye witnesses to support his case. He does not suggest that he tried (but failed) to obtain such evidence. It would be surprising if he had even attempted to do such a thing: clearly, the fact that a single eye witness did not see something does not mean that it did not happen. It is only if there is a convergence of all the evidence that such a conclusion would follow. Even if Ms Polanska-Palmer saw nothing at all, her evidence would still be of no value for the court in this action.
98.Further, as appears from James Libson's witness statement (paragraphs 32-88), her evidence does not fulfil the 2nd or 3rd tests of Ladd v Marshall. Penguin notes that,   despite requests going back to 1st March 2001, no signed version of Ms Polanska-Palmer's evidence has been received.
99.I believe that the contents of this witness statement are true
<< Summary regarding Rudolf ...

accessed 12 March 2013