Author: Roger
Date: 03-21-05
00:08
Rssponses eagerly awaited, as well, to the following
(which mr. irving very hypocritically ducks because I do not include
my full address in my email. As I offered, mr. irving: you publicly
post your exact location for every day of the next three weeks, and
*then* you have a basis to whine that I do not care to share such
personal details with you.) Oh, and your claims that the whine
you've been sending in response was computer generated are shown for
yet another of your lame lies by the fact that the first message
below was sent under the same conditions as my other emails, and yet
merited no such response:
On Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at
10:03 PM, Roger wrote:
While I cannot claim to speak for
Ms. Lipstadt, I will endeavour to address your questions, thereby
satisfying your curiousity and making their continued publication
moot:
WE ARE often asked for questions to put to
Professor Lipstadt in her well-funded peregrinations around the
world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.
. . here are just a few:
Prof. Lipstadt - why were you afraid
to go into the witness box and expose yourself even to the
questioning of an amateur like Mr. Irving? You effectively pleaded
the Fifth Amendment, which is the traditional route of those with
something to hide. (Mr. Irving subjected himself voluntarily to
three weeks' cross examination by one of the world's leading trial
lawyers, and he voluntarily made available to you his entire private
and public papers.)
<Roger>
Do you not read your
own site, mr. irving? From
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Auschwitz/Lipstadt/Deutsche_Welle.html
:
"First of all, I wasn't obligated to take the stand. I
offered to. I continuously told my lawyers that I was more than
willing to take the stand, that I could hold my own against this
guy. But the standard operating procedure in libel trials is not to
put the author on the stand. The author is being sued for what they
wrote. So my book was at issue. We had to prove that what I wrote in
my book was correct, and there was nothing I could add by taking the
stand. Though I do have to say that for me, someone for whom keeping
quiet is an unnatural act, it was terribly difficult to restrain
myself and listen to a man who was spewing anti-Semitism and
racism."
</Roger>
are you aware that one of your
main researchers, Dr. David Cesarani, said that Mr. Irving gave the
defence some scary moments, particularly when their chief expert
witness on the architecture of Auschwitz, Prof. Van Pelt, proved
unable to explain what had happened to the bodies (i.e. the
logistics of disposing, for example, of 450,000 Hungarian Jews'
bodies in three weeks - around 50,000 tons of corpses, by a small
Sonderkommando in one crematory building) [Internet link: see
http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/trial3/DieZeit120400e.html]
<Roger>
Ö
and?
</Roger>
why did you not accept David
Irving's challenge, made three times publicly in the courtroom, that
he would halt the case in mid-trial if you could find any evidence
of the holes in the roof slab of Crematorium II at Auschwitz - which
still exists - through which "eye witnesses" in the pay of
war-crimes prosecution teams claimed to have seen SS officers
tipping the Zyklon B granules? Your own chief witness Van Pelt said
there are no such holes in the slab, so somebody lied,
right?
<Roger>
Here's one for you: why did
*you* withdraw, at the last minute, the Rudolf report, which then
would have offered the opportunity for the introduction of "The
Ruins of the Gas Chambers: A Forensic Investigation of Crematoriums
at Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau" into
evidence?
</Roger>
why are you afraid of
free debate? You have said there is no debate, but when push came to
shove your highly paid Queen's Counsel felt it necessary to fill the
courtroom every day for three months with over thirty lawyers,
counsel, barristers, assistants, historians, and researchers, just
to stand up against Mr. Irving, who appeared in court alone. Was
your case really that weak?
<Roger>
No, the
case was a slam dunk, as the final judgment amply shows. You seem to
be conflating the idea of a defense against a spurious charge of
libel with a debate. Do you really not see how very dishonest that
is?
</Roger>
why have you and your friends
done all you can to muzzle Mr. Irving - by putting pressure on
publishers, broadcasters, television companies, and governments not
to allow him to speak or to publish his widely acknowledged books?
What are you scared of?
<Roger>
And you can
document, I suppose, that what little has been done is "all they
can?" The Freedom of Speech you so hypocritically invoke does not
include the necessity that anyone take you seriously. Is it anyone's
fault but your own that you were found, in a court of law of your
own choosing (one in which the deck was stacked in your favour) to
have lied about and distorted history in support of an overpowering
ideological to whitewash Hitler, and that this has then impacted
your ability to peddle those lies and
distortions?
</Roger>
in a trial which was
about a very serious matter, why did you instruct your counsel to
resort to smear tactics, branding Mr. Irving as an anti-Semite and a
racist (although he, unlike your Counsel, frequently employs ethnic
minorities as his personal staff), and although neither allegation
was made in your book or pleaded in your initial Defence? Were you
frightened of fighting the case on the facts of
history?
<Roger>
You can, of course,
document that such characterizations (which, I may remind you, were
more than amply supported by the facts of the matter) were used
explicitly and solely on the instructions of Ms. Lipstadt? And why
are you pretending that the facts of the case allow for any other
judgment that was rendered?
</Roger>
are you
aware that Mr Irving's case is under
appeal?
<Roger>
You really should update this,
now that the final appeal has been very properly turned
away
</Roger>
How do you feel about going
around the world despite that, drawing fat fees, and smearing him
still further in advance of the final
outcome?
<Roger>
How do *you* feel going
about the world drawing fees and donations, none of which you report
to the appropriate authorities and none of which are going to pay
the judgment in a case which I remind you that you started entirely
on your own and which you ably lost your hat because
of?
</Roger>
How much money have you made
out of this trial (articles, speaking fees, etc.) already? That's
what it's about, isn't it -
money?
<Roger>
The answer to that very same
question would be far more interesting coming from you, given your
complete refusal to even begin paying the judgment you owe (not to
mention the taxes and such on the income you continue to
make.)
</Roger>
do you think it right to pay
some of your so called "neutral" expert witnesses a quarter of a
million dollars in inducements to testify in your
favour?
<Roger>
You have a problem with
Penguin Books having defended itself with every tool at its
disposal? Or is your problem that no one would even consider a
fraction of that figure for your own services as an expert witness?
Is it that those witnesses are not entitled to compensation for
their time and effort? What *is* the problem
here?
</Roger>
Those six million dollars put
up by Steven Spielberg - you are a religious scholar: Have you never
heard the Bible say, "Good wine needs no bush"? If your case is rock
solid why was so much money swilling around that London courtroom?
[Internet link:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/payments.html]
<Roger>
Because
you sued someone with the will and the means to defend themselves
vigorously. Really, mr. irving, this isn't rocket
science...
</Roger>
a new Zealand academic
tribunal has just found that Prof. Richard Evans, your chief
witness, was guilty of grossly distorting, misquoting, exaggerating,
and polemicizing in his similar "expert report" on Dr. Joel Hayward,
and totally lacking in the objectivity that is expected by a court
of an expert witness. How do you feel about Evans now? [Internet
link:
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/experts/Evans/NZReportExtract.html]
<Roger>
How
do *you* feel about the fact that your insinuations notwithstanding,
the Evans Report completely and factually trashes your claims to
historical accuracy using nothing but your own words and cited
sources?
</Roger>
have you read Norman
Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry. Is he a racist and
anti-Semite too?
<Roger>
One must note that,
unlike yourself, Finkelstein does not deny the
Holocaust.
</Roger>
you have argued in your
books and articles that Jews should never stoop to marrying outside
their religion and race. Is that not racism in its purest and most
evil form?
<Roger>
You can, of course,
document Ms. Lipstadt even making reference to race in such
declarations, right? And do you not find this rather a hypocritical
whine from the entity that penned for his infant daughter: "I am a
baby Aryan / not Jewish or Sectarian / I have no plans to marry / an
Ape or Rastafarian?"
</Roger>
who paid your
own multi-million dollar legal expenses, and why did the British
High Court, unusually, not allow you to reclaim
them?
<Roger>
Who are you to question how
the defense against your spurious charges was financed, and better
yet what difference does it make? A better question is why you
continue to refuse to even begin making good on the judgment you
brought upon yourself? And why are you lying about the recovery of
those expenses? Is *that* why you been forced into bankruptcy and
had your flat seized and so
forth?
</Roger>
Judge Gray found in his
Judgment that three of the statements you made in your book against
Mr Irving are in fact serious lies just as he claimed (the Stockholm
terrorist conference, the Hitler painting "above his desk", the
stealing or damaging of the Goebbels diaries from the Moscow
archives. Have you removed them from the book's latest editions?)
(Answer: You have not).
<Roger>
Judge Gray
also found you liable for a settlement. Have you done anything
toward paying it? (Answer: you have not.)
You lecture and
sell books in the U.S., which taxes the proceeds of such income.
Have you even made motions toward paying such taxes? (Answer: you
have not.)
You have lost your shirt in a legal battle which
you initiated for the sole purpose of stifling Ms. Lipstadt (nor is
she the first person with whom you have attempted this.) Are you
going to step up and face the consequences of that action (Answer:
no, you likely will
not.)
</Roger>
AND
On Saturday, March
19, 2005, at 07:17 AM, Roger wrote:
Recently, on your
website you reposted (in its entirety, and in complete disregard to
copyright law) an article by Tamar Lewin, with your own comments
interspersed and unattributed. To be precise, you added the phrase
"predominately Jewish" to the sentence below:
"MORE than 200
[predominantly Jewish] historians at colleges nationwide sent a
petition to C-Span yesterday to protest its plan to accompany its
coverage of a lecture by Deborah E. Lipstadt, a professor of
Holocaust studies at Emory University, with a speech by David
Irving, who has argued that Hitler was not fully responsible for the
mass murder of Jews"
Now, the article *is* headed with the
disclaimer [images and captions added by this website], but it says
nothing about "completely unsupported and gratuitous assertions
added."
First of all, I wonder why you feel that it is only
*your* works which deserve the protection of the law? Since a person
of your experience cannot be unfamiliar with the concept of the
protection of intellectual property, the excuse of ignorance can
hardly be offered.
Second, I really think you owe it to
everyone following this story to share your sources for the
astonishing assertion that most of the people on the Wyman Institute
list are Jewish. Did you speak to each of them individually, asking
their religious preferences? Or is this yet another shining example
of your "research" automatically supporting your conclusions,
regardless of the actual evidence?
|
|
.gif){kind=spacer}
Copyright 2003 JFLMedia.com| Privacy
Policy & Terms of Use | Refer
this Site to a Friend