Day 8: Monday, 24th January 2000

Table of Contents

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1-11.26)

Transcription Details 1.1-1.26

Irving mentions new document submissions concerning translations and examples of Holocaust instrumentalization. 2.1-7.26

Scheduling 8.1-11.26

Part II: Rampton examines Irving (morning session) (12.1 to 100.12)

Section 12.1-35.13

Rampton begins his examination 12.1-17.26

Discussion of Biddle’s notes on Nuremberg testimony continues. 18.1-22.7

Irving’s Ontario speech on Biddle papers. 22.8-27.25

Irving’s published forward to the Leuchter report, questioning the use of gas chambers at Auschwitz. 27.25-35.13

Section 35.14-50.9

Rampton questions Irving on inaccuracies in the Leuchter report. 35.14-42.2

Correspondence with Colin Beer, who criticized the Leuchter report. 42.3-50.9

Section 50.10-66.12

Beer’s critique of Leuchter continued. 50.10-59.1

Dr. Roth’s role in the Leuchter cyanide tests. 59.2-61.13

Irving admits problems in Leuchter but defends its essential validity based on other reports. 61.13-66.12

Section 66.13-82.19

Rampton demonstrates Leuchter’s errors concerning fatal cyanide concentrations. 66.13-76.18

Irving summarizes reports that he claims corroborate Leuchter’s conclusions. 76.19-79.5

Rampton asks Irving why he was silent on Leuchter’s critics in 1995 Tampa remarks. 79.6-84.13

Section 84.14-100.12

Rampton introduces evidence of cyanide remains on ventilation grates from crematoria at Auschwitz and Birkenhau. 84.14-86.17

Irving claims gas cellars are for delousing clothing or corpses but may have also been used as air raid shelters. 86.18-92.22

Discussion of women’s hair found with cyanide remains and continued debate over the use of gas cellars 92.23-100.12

Part III: David Irving’s Cross-Examination by Richard Rampton, continued, Afternoon Session (100.13 to 187.3)

Section 100.13-120.6

Leuchter Report (gas chambers in Auschwitz); Summer-early Autumn 1942; Reinhardt camps: Belsec, Sobibor, Treblinka. 100.13-102.20

Rampton questions Irving on his claim that gas chambers were designed for delousing corpses or objects. 102.21-109.14

Further inaccuracies in the Leuchter report.109.15-117.18

Irving’s stance on Leuchter again questioned 117.19-120.6

Section 120.7-132.23

Discussion of Leuchter’s findings on incineration capacity. 120.7-122.5

Discussion of potential topics. 122.6-127.5

Rampton questions Irving on the overall tendency of the Auschwitz evidence 127.6-129.11

Discussion of the meaning of “Vergasungskeller” 129.12-132.23

Section 134.24-151.1

The purpose of gas type doors with peep holes. 132.24-139.2

Rampton questions the feasibility of using the gas cellar as an air raid shelter. 139.3-143.11

Rampton asks whether fumigation, air raid shelter, or extermination is the likeliest explanation of the evidence. 143.12-151.1

Section 151.2-162.13

Irving questions the authenticity of a document produced by the Defense supporting the incineration capacity necessary for the Holocaust. 151.2-154.19

Rampton asks what would be the point of such a high incineration capacity. 154.20-156.20

Irving regards the incineration capacity figures as impossible. 156.21-162.13

Section 162.14-175.21

Irving regards eyewitness evidence as least reliable. 162.14-167.25

Discussion of some examples: Hirst, Eichmann, and Bauer. 167.26-171.11

Dayaco and Eiffel, architects of Auschwitz. 171.12-175.21

Section 175.22-191.26

Irving questioned on his access to and knowledge of Auschwitz evidence. 175.22-180.13

Rampton questions Irving’s claimed disinterest in Holocaust research. 180.14-186.8

Discussion of upcoming evidence for Irving’s case, allegedly confirming the Leuchter report. 186.9-191.26