| ||
Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate. |
George
Webster
of USA, writes on
Friday, December 22, 2000
Evans is squirting again
HAVE you see Richard Evans' mealy-mouthed
article
in the current (January 2000) issue of BBC 'History'
Magazine? To say that the content of the article is
economical with the truth would be an understatement. For
anyone who has followed the Lipstadt Trial, 
Evans'
version contains distortions and omissions which are so
crass as to beggar belief. One example: Evans (right)
writes: "As an expert witness, my first duty was to the
court, and the defence was not entitled in any way to
influence what I wrote, though if it did not like my
conclusions it always had the option of refusing to
present my report to the court."
Disingenuous is too mild an epithet for these assertions by Evans. The blindingly obvious omissions in this short passage are,
- Evans makes no mention of the large retaining fee paid to him by the defendants, which
- invites the obvious conclusion that he clearly WAS under the influence of, and obligation to, the defendants (ie his 'first duty' was not 'to the court', but to his paymasters);
- of course, is the fact that the defendants were hardly likely to have passed over such monies for a report that had any chance whatsoever of being less than fully partisan to their cause (they clearly assessed their man well before awarding him the 'contract') - therefore the 'option' of their not presenting Evans' report to the court would never been a serious consideration at any point to the defendants.
This would all be very amusing were it not for the fact that many people not au fait with the detail of the trial, and Evans' financial relationship to the defendants, will read his article and come to totally unwarranted conclusions.
Through this scurrilous article, Evans has, once again, bequeathed the high moral ground to you.
Related item on this website:
DAVID
IRVING writes: A
EVANS turns up again as an expert witness in the attempted (but failed) deprivation of New Zealand historian Joel Hayward of his well earned academic title (Evans disapproves of Hayward's views). Eventually even the dimmest Cambridge University student will learn to hoot this peabrained pintsized scowling Welshman into oblivion whenever he tries to lecture to them on history. He is the historians' equivalent of a concert pianist who has never bothered to practice his scales.
As
for the BBC: a rival television channel has commissioned
a five-part television documentary featuring the trial --
and Lipstadt has refused to participate, as it will
include all the people whom she fears and detests. The
documentary will consist of five one-hour segments to
broadcast all one week next year 2001, from Monday to
Friday. Now that is enough to make a skunk (right) scowl.
Watch this website for more details.
David Irving