| ||
Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate. |
A
S Marques
of Portugal
comments on Sunday, December 24, 2000
Lord Justice Sedley's decision
I am shocked at the surrealistic nonsense people will indulge in when it comes to any semblance of "Holocaust" examination. I think the words in [Sedley's refusal of permission to appeal] that will go down in history this time are the following:
"but the evidence that there were no holes for the admission of cyanide pellets is at best inconclusive against the potent evidence that people were gassed there in tens of thousands."
This, of course is the equivalent of saying "the evidence that the body lacked bullet holes is at best inconclusive against the potent evidence that the victim was shot with a rifle."
How do we know? Well, we have a few witnesses who say so. Of course, in my example, we would at least have a body in which to perform an autopsy. The "Holocaust" is a bit more complicated since not a single autopsy in the liberated camps revealed a trace of gassing.
On the other hand, the Four million who were reduced to One million a couple of years ago, now appear to be in the process of being reduced to tens of thousands. Why is it that "Holocaust denial" laws never apply to judges?
Odd, to say the least...
DAVID
IRVING writes:
point at the last two links to see pictures of the memorial tablets that used to, or still do, exist at the Auschwitz site.
David Irving