Day 9 Transcript: Holocaust Denial on Trial

Part I: Initial Proceedings (1.1 to 18.17)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1996 I. No. 113 QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London Tuesday, 25th January 2000 Before: MR JUSTICE GRAY B E T W E E N: DAVID JOHN CAWDELL IRVING Claimant -and- (1) PENGUIN BOOKS LIMITED (2) DEBORAH E.

LIPSTADT Defendants The Claimant appeared in person MR RICHARD RAMPTON Q.C. (instructed by Messrs Davenport Lyons and Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Defendants MISS HEATHER ROGERS (instructed by Davenport Lyons) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant Penguin Books Limited MR ANTHONY JULIUS (of Mishcon de Reya) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant Deborah Lipstadt (Transcribed from the stenographic notes of Harry Counsell & Company,Clifford’s Inn,

Fetter Lane, London EC4 Telephone: 020-7242-9346) (This transcript is not to be reproduced without the written permission of Harry Counsell & Company) PROCEEDINGS – DAY NINE

<Day 9 Tuesday, 25th January 2000. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, I have your clip which I obviously have not had time to read. Before we get into that, shall we, as proposed, just look ahead and consider what is going to be happening? We are going to have Professor van Pelt today, is that right? MR RAMPTON: Yes, my Lord, that right. MR IRVING: Yes.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: So that the transcript is clear, that is him being interposed in order to be called by the Defendants and cross-examined because he has commitments elsewhere. Is it expected he will be finished in a day? MR IRVING: I doubt it, my Lord. I think two days. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right. So when will he resume? He cannot be here tomorrow, Mr Rampton, can he? MR RAMPTON: He can tomorrow but not Thursday. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So we should get rid of him.

MR RAMPTON: If he can be done in two days, so much the better; if he cannot, he can come back on Friday. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have to keep within reasonable bounds so I hope he will be finished within two days. MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving’s original estimate for him was three days. We asked what the estimate was. But, if it is two days, so much the better. If we have Friday a blank, as it were, then I shall continue cross-examining Mr Irving on Friday, I suppose.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: Then on Monday, Professor McDonald, and I do not know about Dr Fox, it may be him too. I do not know. That is in Mr Irving’s hands. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I cannot remember who Professor McDonald is. MR IRVING: My expert witness. MR RAMPTON: He is a social scientist, I think. MR JUSTICE GRAY: How long is he going to be, just so that you are communicating about timing?

MR IRVING: I shall be submitting various documents to him with your Lordship’s permission, my Lord, and it depends on whether Mr Rampton wishes to cross-examine him or not. MR JUSTICE GRAY: He may not know the answer to that until he knows in more detail what he is going to say. MR RAMPTON: I have a pretty good idea what he is going to say. The answer is if I cross-examine him at all, it will be quite shortly, I expect. MR JUSTICE GRAY: And then Fox?

MR RAMPTON: I do not know about Mr Fox. That is Mr Irving’s witness. MR IRVING: I expect Dr Fox will be half a day, my Lord, if that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right. MR RAMPTON: Then, my Lord, I hope I will be able to complete any outstanding issues arising out of Evans and the political scientists in the remainder of the four days of

that week. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: I would be disappointed if I do not. I would hope I would be quicker than that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think I would too. I think you have been through the most — if I can use the word “laborious” without giving offence — laborious bit. MR RAMPTON: No, not laborious, perhaps the most important issues anyway. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Distorting history on Hitler. MR RAMPTON: Distorting Hitler and Holocaust denial by means of Auschwitz denial.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: So at the end of those four days, will that complete your cross-examination? MR RAMPTON: Yes, it should do. As your Lordship knows, Reichskristallnacht is a bit fiddly. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is quite convoluted. MR RAMPTON: It is convoluted, exactly, so it may take a bit of time.

Then, my Lord, we are now being speculative, in a sense, provisional, we would hope to start our evidence, excluding Professor van Pelt, on Monday, whatever it is of February, with possibly Professor Browning, possibly Dr Longerich, possibly Professor Evans, I do not know. Then I think perhaps the only political scientists we will call as a witness is Fulkhan, the German. But that is a little bit in the future.

I have put question marks against Levin and Eatwell and also against the Russian witness Tarasov because, quite frankly, having regard to the witness statement of Mr Irving’s witness, the journalist, Peter Miller, I do not think Mr Tarasov has anything to add at all. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I will say again that I think in relation to the Moscow diaries some sort of accommodation might be possible.

MR IRVING: My Lord, I do wish to make certain fundamental observations about the way the case is being conducted so far. I do not know if this is the appropriate moment. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think now is probably the moment for you to do that, unless you would rather reserve it for later? MR IRVING: It is brief but to the point, my Lord. I am the Claimant in this action.

This is my action, and I spent yesterday evening indulging in a little bit of light reading in the Civil Procedure Rules and my eye alighted on Lord Woolf’s wise words towards the beginning of the introduction to the Rules which states that all steps have to be taken to ensure complete equity between the parties. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course. That is my major function. MR IRVING: It is a major departure from the old system.

He said, he identified a range of defects in the existing civil justice system, the third of which was that it was too unequal in that there was a lack of equality between

the powerful, wealthy litigant and the under-resourced litigant. My Lord, I am up against a powerful, wealthy litigant here, as evidenced by the fact that I stand here alone and on the other side of your Lordship’s court are sometimes between 20 and 40 experts, researchers, solicitors, learned counsel, arrayed against me —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: That had not escaped my notice. MR IRVING: — funded by the most enormous resources. Somehow, the sequence of events has got reversed.

Your Lordship will remember that when we embarked on this two and a half weeks ago, we were looking at the prospect of holding off Auschwitz until towards the end of the discussions, but now Auschwitz has somehow come right up in front. Their witnesses have been interspersed in the middle of my presentation of the case.

It now turns out that Professor Robert Jan van Pelt is here at this time purely because it is convenient to him because he is going on a Holocaust junket to Stockholm on Thursday together with the Second Defendant. I do not see why I should be inconvenienced in this way, my Lord. I do not, frankly, understand why your Lordship is tolerating it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Partly, Mr Irving, because you have not until now raised any objection.

We have been discussing for some days now when Dr Van Pelt might give his evidence.

I had understood (and I will be corrected by reference to the transcript if I am wrong about this) that you had not raised any objection and, indeed, I had understood you to concur with his being interposed at this stage.

MR IRVING: But the inevitable result is, my Lord, that this means that Auschwitz has been brought right to the front of this case purely for the convenience of one of the witnesses who intends to fly to Stockholm on this lavish junket Thursday for which the whole court is having to hold its breath for a day.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am a bit puzzled, Mr Irving, about this protest because you were cross-examined for the whole of yesterday about Auschwitz, so there is no question of Auschwitz having suddenly being brought to the forefront of the case. It was brought to the forefront of the case when cross-examination was embarked on yesterday morning. MR IRVING: The inevitable result, of course, has been that it has driven a cart and horses right through my preparations for the major part of the case.

Also, it has had the unfortunate effect of putting in front of your Lordship and, of course, the public the entire opposition case, so to speak, without my being able to lead all the evidence which I intended to lead in advance which is the normal way that it should have been conducted. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course that is right. In a case like this where it is judge alone, in a way one is able to be more

accommodating with witnesses’ personal difficulties. MR IRVING: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: The problem I have now is that you are telling me really I think for the first time that you are unhappy about Professor van Pelt being interposed, but he is here. We have been proceeding on the basis that he would be interposed without any dissent from you. I am rather reluctant, unless you want to press it, to change the schedule.

MR IRVING: Well, my Lord, it is obviously too late to change the schedule now, but I wish to draw your attention purely to the disadvantageous effect it has on me. Your Lordship has now been presented with all the hostile evidence in advance of the evidence which I would normally put first as the Claimant. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is a bit unreal. I have read all the expert reports before the case started, as you know and as Mr Rampton knows.

So I knew very well what the case on Auschwitz against you is going to be. MR IRVING: With the utmost respect, my Lord, of course, a lot of our case depends upon the spin that various parties put on words —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course that is true. MR IRVING: — and on documents which your Lordship has not even seen yet. The only way that I can introduce those documents, I believe, is by putting them to the expert

witnesses. These are documents which your Lordship has not even seen yet because, as far as I can see, the bundles do not include them. This is the unfortunate result. But I shall try to prepare it as well as can I over the next few days, my Lord, but I cannot understand why we are being held hostage to this convention in Stockholm. It has nothing to do with this court.

It appears to be the only reason why Professor van Pelt was come over at the beginning of the case rather than in the proper timing. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I must say I would have listened with great sympathy to the point you are now making if you had made it a bit earlier. Your problem is you have left it really until the very last minute to raise this objection.

MR IRVING: If learned counsel had informed us that the only reason why Professor van Pelt was over at this end of the month rather than in the proper period was for his own personal convenience in order that he can combine it with this junket in Stockholm, then —- MR RAMPTON: That is just not right. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Let me hear Mr Rampton on this, Mr Irving. What is the reason? MR RAMPTON: It has always been my intention to start my cross-examination with Auschwitz.

Because Mr Irving fell short in chief — I know not why — I started cross-examining earlier than I had expected. His original

estimate for his own case was two to three weeks. I, therefore, got Professor van Pelt over here for Monday, 24th January, when I was expecting to start my whole cross-examination with Auschwitz. Stockholm, as it happened, came later, his appointment at Stockholm. Incidentally, I add that the First Defendant, Professor Lipstadt, is not going to Stockholm, despite what Mr Irving says. That is why Professor van Pelt is here.

I then read, if I may, what Mr Irving said on Tuesday, 11th January, at the beginning of this case. This is page 5: “I am perfectly prepared to have Professor van Pelt come over in the middle of whatever else is going on and we can take him as a separate entirety. He is certainly an extremely interesting witness to be heard”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I had got the impression that this was all happening by agreement really on both sides. MR RAMPTON: Yes.

There cannot be any question about it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, we are going to have Professor van Pelt now for you to cross-examine. But one thing I have said before now and I say it again, I am very conscious of the burden that is being placed upon you. It must be gigantic. I think it is going to get more difficult when you are cross-examining. If you want more time when the court is not sitting so that you have got the ability to prepare and so on, all you have to do is ask and within

reason I will try to accommodate you. MR IRVING: That would have been the request that I would have ultimately submitted, my Lord. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think, when you have one expert after another, as Mr Rampton was forecasting will happen in about 10 days’ time, that is when I think your difficulties will be at their worst. If then you want time between the witnesses to prepare yourself, then again within reason I will try to accommodate you.

MR IRVING: My Lord, as to my remarks about the Second Defendant also going to Stockholm, that was based on the Swedish government’s announcement that she was attending. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well, you have been told by Mr Rampton that she is not. MR IRVING: She is listed in all the agenda at the conference as a speakered. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, well, I think it is unlikely she will be going in view of what Mr Rampton has said. MR IRVING: Very well, my Lord.

They are the only submissions I had to make on that. I wished really to draw to your Lordship’s attention, that is all, that things have been taken out of my hands in an unsatisfactory way. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, well, my function is to make sure that you are not disadvantaged because you have no lawyers. I cannot provide you with a back up team, obviously, but I am trying to look after your interests, as judges always

do with litigants in person. But so far, I do not believe you have suffered any disadvantage. MR IRVING: Well, only inasmuch as I have not had the opportunity to put before your Lordship the documents on which I rely as yet which would be the normal sequence of events. MR JUSTICE GRAY: You could have done that before the trial started. MR IRVING: Well, my Lord, the bundles had been prepared entirely by the Defence. They are not agreed bundles.

They have large lacunae in them, as your Lordship will see when the time comes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, but you knew that you had the opportunity to put before the court any bundles of documents that you wanted to rely on. MR IRVING: This is precisely what we were working on when the Defendants came charging in with a reversal of the timetable, my Lord. This is basically the problem, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes.

Right now you want to take me through some documents, do you, before Professor van Pelt goes into the witness box? MR RAMPTON: My Lord, can I, first of all, add one thing before that discussion is closed? It is this. I think I need to say it because inevitably sometimes Mr Irving has attempted to use the court as a public platform. True it is there is an inequality of resources; true also it is,

however, that my clients are defending a suit brought by Mr Irving. It reminds one of the old French proverb: “These animals are very naughty. They defend themselves when they are attacked”. MR IRVING: That proverb cuts both ways, Mr Rampton. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, well, that is enough of that. Now, do you want to do this now? Is that what you are proposing? MR IRVING: Do I wish to? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Address me on these documents you handed in this morning?

MR IRVING: One or two of them, my Lord. The others are there purely for the purposes of being in your Lordship’s hands when we start with Professor van Pelt. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Just so we get things done in the right way, I think you ought to go back into the witness box just to deal with whatever evidence you want to give arising out of yesterday. It is just so we know which hat you are wearing, advocate or witness.

It is difficult, but I think it is quite important to keep an eye on the difference. <MR IRVING, recalled. < Examined by the Court MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right? THE WITNESS:[Mr Irving]: The first document, my Lord, is the one headed “Institute for Historical Review”. This is a letter written by the Institute for Historical Review to

Professor Gerald Fleming who is an acknowledged expert on the Holocaust. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. A. [Mr Irving]: And I draw your Lordship’s attention purely to the paragraph on the second page which I printed in bold face, the last paragraph.

Your Lordship was enquiring about what other reports after the Leuchter report continued to support that contention, and here is a very useful summary of them: “Rudolf reached essentially the same conclusion as had American gas chamber specialist, Fred Leuchter, in his 1988 forensic investigation of the allied gas chambers at Auschwitz and Birkenhau.

You may also be aware that as a result of Leuchter’s findings, the Institute of Forensic Research in Cracow conducted a partial investigation and that its forensic analysis, given in a confidential September 1990 report, corroborated Leuchter’s findings”. Your Lordship may remember that I referred to the fact — MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, you did. MR IRVING: — that the Auschwitz authority had locked it away. “This report was published in the summer 1991 Journal of Historical Review.

Moreover, Austrian engineer, Walter Luftel, who was, in fact, the President of the Austrian Federation of Engineers, explicitly endorsed Leuchter’s findings in the detailed March 1992 report published in the winter 1992 to 1993

Journal, and the German engineer, Wolfgang Schuster, and the American research chemist, William Linsky, reached conclusions similar to those of Leuchter and Rudolf”. More of that is relevant, but that is the only paragraph that I would just draw to your Lordship’s attention to bear out the fact that Leuchter was not one lone voice crying in the wilderness.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are taking a relaxed view of the rules about evidence, but this is Mr Weber of the Institute for Historical Review telling Professor Fleming what he says these various individuals concluded. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Are you going to show me the Rudolf report in due course? A. [Mr Irving]: The Rudolf report —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Not now. A. [Mr Irving]: I should have handed it to your Lordship.

Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Do not worry now, but this is rather third hand, is it not? That is what I am saying. A. [Mr Irving]: It is, my Lord, but the Rudolf report is the glossy blue publication which I brought in about a dozen copies this morning, and through an oversight it obviously was not listed in discovery for which I do apologise. That was an omission. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, that is that?

A. [Mr Irving]: My Lord, the only other document I draw to your Lordship’s attention is the one headed top left, it is an invoice

Vedag, V-E-D-A-G. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Yes, I noticed that. A. [Mr Irving]: And it is the United Cardboard Factory of Silesia. It is an invoice to Auschwitz crematorium — I am sorry, it is an invoice to the central construction office in Auschwitz, 28th July, an invoice concerning the Auschwitz crematorium for —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: “Entwesungsanlage”?

A. [Mr Irving]: Just the first two or three lines inside the box on the invoice shows that it is for sealing work, S-E-A-L-I-N-G work, carried out for the Entwesungsanlage — E-N-T —- Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: And that is the delousing chamber? A. [Mr Irving]: Disinfestation chamber, or disinfestation installation, strictly speaking.

I mean, we may have an interesting discussion with Professor van Pelt about precisely what that was, but certainly it tends to bear out my contention of one of the uses to which that building was being put. My Lord, that is all I wish to say from the witness box. Q. [Mr Justice Gray]: Just let me get that. Thank you very much. I think you can go back and resume your role as —- MR RAMPTON: Could I just ask one question before he does, my Lord? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Arising out of that?

MR RAMPTON: Yes, it is only an administrative question. < Cross-examined by MR RAMPTON Q. [Mr Rampton]: I want to know, Mr Irving, whether you received yesterday

an invoice, I think it is, or something of that nature — I cannot find it at the moment — dated 13th April 1943 from Topf to the Zentralebauleitung at Auschwitz concerning [German – document not provided]. A. [Mr Irving]: I received just a loose document faxed through to me sometime in the evening, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You did receive it? That is all I wanted to know. A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Good. Thank you very much. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That does not tell me very much.

MR RAMPTON: Has your Lordship not got it? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, well, if I have, I am not aware of having it. A. [Mr Irving]: Can I be shown a copy now in case there is any comment I wish to make on it? MR JUSTICE GRAY: There are an awful lot of spare bits of paper flowing around.

It seems extraordinary when —- MR RAMPTON: This arose simply because yesterday for the first time Mr Irving brought to our attention a document dated 20th August 1943 which on its second page, as we now see, is a bill from Topf, or an invoice, it mentions “Entwesungsanlage”, as does the piece of paper that he has just given to us and to your Lordship.

There is, in fact, another piece of paper which is very likely related to it which as its last item but one mentions two Topf entwesungsofen —-

A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: — for crematorium (ii). Those are delousing ovens? A. [Mr Irving]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I make no comment beyond that. I will hand that up to your Lordship because I am sure your Lordship will need it in due course. It goes with the other two documents from Mr Irving’s side. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Shall I put it in J as well because I am really anxious we keep an eye — I seem to have the Rudolf report at the same time.

A. [Mr Irving]: That is the Rudolf report, my Lord. MR RAMPTON: It might be convenient to have them in chronological order. That document I have just handed up will be the first. The second would be the one that Mr Irving has just handed in dated 28th July. The last would be the document we got last night, if we did, which is the invoice from Topf. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. That is the only questions, so would you mind going back. <(The witness stood down)

Part II: Professor Van Pelt’s Examination by Richard Rampton (18.18 to 37.19)

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, you are going to call your witness? MR RAMPTON: Yes, my Lord, I am. I preface calling him with this request, perhaps is the right word. I have the impression, and so do others, that the question of the various Polish reports may be a little bit confused.

The Rudolf report only came up yesterday. Professor van Pelt has not read the Rudolf report. He does not have a copy with him, but he does know something about it. What I propose to do is to ask just a very few questions in chief just to get that question straight, if your Lordship permits it? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course. Anything, as it were, that has surfaced since he did his written report, I think that is entirely proper.

MR RAMPTON: This arises out of two things, one the Rudolf report mentioned for the first time yesterday, and second what I perceive to have been a bit of a confusion about the sequence of the Polish reports because there were, in fact, three. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. The one we have had is —- MR RAMPTON: That is 1945. MR JUSTICE GRAY: — the 1945 zinc cover. MR RAMPTON: That is right, and the bag of hair. MR JUSTICE GRAY: But there is Dawidowski as well? MR RAMPTON: No .

My belief is — no, I am cautious about this — that the 1945 report was done at the request of Dawidowski. Then in 1990 there is a preliminary Markievitch report which we do not have and then in 1994 there is what one might call the final Markievitch report, a part of which is in that first volume of the bundle I handed in yesterday.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Right. Mr Irving, I think that is right, that Mr Rampton should be able just to ask these supplementary questions about a new aspect of the case. MR RAMPTON: My Lord, I also make this request. Professor van Pelt has a family Bible which has been in his family since before the war. May he swear on that? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course. < PROFESSOR VAN PELT, sworn. <Examined by MR RAMPTON, QC. MR RAMPTON: Professor van Pelt, are your full names Robert Jan van Pelt?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Have you made a report for the purposes of this case? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I have. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Are you content that that report, save for some few questions which I shall ask you in a moment, shall stand as your evidence-in-chief in this case? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I am content. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you confirm its accuracy so far as it contains statements of fact? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I do.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: And, so far as it contains expressions of opinion, do you confirm that those expressions of opinion are fair? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I do. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Professor van Pelt, there is only one thing I want to ask you about. You heard what it was. Do you remember

yesterday that there was some discussion of the various Polish investigations of the fabric at Auschwitz and Birkenhau? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I remember. Q. [Mr Rampton]: My Lord, may I lead on this? It is going to be much quicker. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am sure we had the evidence yesterday. MR RAMPTON: Yes, we did. The first report was done in late 1945? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, it was.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: That we looked at yesterday, you remember, and that was the one which said that it had found traces of hydrogen cyanide in the zinc ventilation covers from crematorium 2? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: You will have to say yes because you are recorded, you see. And also in a 25 and a half kilogram bag of hair? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Where was that hair found? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The hair was found in Canada I.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Explain to his Lordship what Canada I is, will you? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Canada I was a part of the camp located halfway between Auschwitz I and Auschwitz II in what is now an industrial area, where property of people who had been admitted to the camp or had been gassed was kept for some time and it was sorted and prepared for transport to the Reichs. Unlike Canada II, which was located between the crematoria

2, 3, 4 and 5, Canada I was not destroyed at the evacuation of the camp. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So, just to be blunt about it, what is your inference as to how the cyanide came to be in the human hair? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I think the logical conclusion is that the people from whom the hair came had been killed with cyanide. MR RAMPTON: And the hair removed after death? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: And the hair removed afterwards, yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now, if we can whiz forward to the early 90s, was there a second Polish report done which we do not have? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It is a little difficult to say if it is a real report since it was actually never completed or endorsed, as far as I know.

What happened was that, more or less within months after Leuchter did his investigation in Auschwitz, the conservator at Auschwitz, Mr Smerk, together with the director decided to do their own investigation and they got help from people from the forensic laboratory in Cracow, the Jensen Institute, and a small investigation more or less on the model of the Leuchter investigation was done, which did confirm the Leuchter report in so far that it found high cyanide traces in the delousing rooms BW

5A and I think BW 5B. And much lower quantities I think in crematoria 2 or 3. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Pause there, just so that it is all clear. BW 5A is in Birkenhau, in what became the women’s camp?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. BW 5A means Bowerk 5A; it is a delousing installation in what is generally known as the women’s camp in Birkenhau. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Where is BW 5B? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It is an opposite location slightly to the West of BW 5A. They are around 50 metres apart. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Is it right that those are both brick built buildings? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: These are both brick buildings. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do they have their roofs on them or not?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: They have their roofs on them, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What puzzles me about this is that one of the documents Mr Irving just handed in says that this further Polish or Auschwitz investigation has been published in the summer 1991 Journal of Historical Review. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

The history of that report was kind of a rude wake-up call for the people at Auschwitz museum, because what happened was that, one way or another, the document, which had not been finalized as far as I know, was leaked to people of the Institute of Historical Review and then immediately published rather triumphantly as a Polish investigation and/or sister Leuchter investigation.

It was this kind of experience which then made both the people at the museum and the people at the Jansen institute to decide to move with greater care in the future. MR RAMPTON: Yes, pause there. Are you also familiar with

something called the Rudolf report? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I am vaguely familiar with it. I have not read it in its entirety. Q. [Mr Rampton]: How long is it? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: 20 pages, something like that. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Would you just have a look at this document? (Same handed) like your Lordship, I have not seen this before. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am just trying to work out what qualifications Dr Rudolf has. MR IRVING: My Lord, perhaps I can help you there.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: He is a chemist. MR IRVING: Rudolf is a chemist at the Max Bank Institute in Germany, which is one most prestigious research foundations. While he was there, he had a university degree in chemistry, he was working for his doctorate, he was halted in full tracks when he supplied an expertise for a court action in Germany, which resulted in demands from a certain community in Germany that he should be instantly dismissed, which was resisted by the Max Bank Institute.

He was then dismissed, which brought to an end his chances of getting a doctorate. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is very helpful, thank you. MR RAMPTON: Would you look on the inside so that we can see what this is? I can tell you, Professor van Pelt, that this is not the Rudolf report. Can you look on the inside page? At the bottom there is a line and immediately under

the line we see this: “A German language edition of the complete Rudolf report, 120 A4 pages on gloss paper etc. etc., is now available for £8″. If that be right, Professor van Pelt, we can be confident, can we not, that this is not the Rudolf report? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I presume so, if this disclaimer is placed at the copyright page. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Tell me this.

What do you know of Rudolf’s conclusions concerning the residues, if any, of hydrogen cyanide in whatever compounds it was he tested for in, first of all, BW 5A — if he went there? Did he? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I think he went there, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What did he found in BW 5A?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I would be hesitant to give any kind of definite opinion on this because it is a very long time ago that I read a gloss on the Rudolf report, but I think that he found that in substance the Leuchter results were substantiated by Rudolf, which means a high level of Prussian blue. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So he tested for Prussian blue? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: He found high residues in the delousing facility? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: What did he find in the gas chambers at the crematoria? Did he go to crematoria 2 and 3? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I think so. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What did he find there?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: As far as I remember, but again I have not consulted this report for a long time or the gloss on it, he did not find much there. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Right. You have your report there, I think, that you made for this case? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: My report, yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: I am not going to read out any great amount of this. Could you turn to page 545? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I have done so. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Thank you.

This is the passage, is it not, in which you discuss, first of all, what I might call the Markievitch prototype or provisional report, and then the Markievitch main report which I think came in 1994? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: That has been published, has it? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: In how many languages? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It was published in Polish and in English.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: I think you already told us that he Markievitch, or rather his team, went back and redid it, because they were unhappy about the first rather hurried or botched attempt. Is that right? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That were quite unhappy, yes, and they did the tests again. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What substances or compounds did they test for? Did they test for Prussian blue?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No. I am not a chemist so forgive me if I am not going to give great detail on this. What I do know is that they found that the Prussian blue test was problematic and this was —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can I interrupt you just to make sure I am understanding? The Prussian blue is simply the physical manifestation of a chemical reaction caused by the acid in the cyanide, is that right? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: With iron.

It is an iron compound and ultimately it is one of the things which can occur when you, for example, have hydrogen cyanide being applied to iron, but also other reactions can follow. MR RAMPTON: Can you just pause there? I want to take it slowly so that we are quite sure we understand so far as you are able to tell us because, as you say, you are not a chemist, what the reasons may be for what we are going to see in a moment. Can you turn to page 552? Page 553 I hope is the opposite page.

Is it? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, but I will be able to turn the page. Q. [Mr Rampton]: We are lucky because we have them on facing pages. On the left-hand side of your report you have put a table with crematorium 2 at the top. Yes? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I have. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Where did that come from? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I made the tables on the basis of the English language edition of the 1994 Markievitch report. The only change

I made was that I basically formatted all the tables in the same way because in the Markievitch report they were formatted differently. So I wanted that the way the information was going to be presented was going to be identical throughout the tables. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you have the complete original of the Markievitch report here if anybody should want to look at it? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I have one copy here. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Just put it down for the moment, please?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Rampton, before plunging into these tables, would it be helpful for me to know what exactly it was that the revised Markievitch report decided or concluded? MR RAMPTON: That it concluded? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR RAMPTON: Yes, all right. Will you tell his Lordship, Professor van Pelt, broadly speaking, what its findings were by reference, first, please to the crematoria and then to the delousing? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: There were three parts to the Markievitch report.

First of all, there was a test of the crematoria, was there really cyanide compound in the walls of the crematoria? Second of all, were there cyanide compounds in the delousing building BW 5A and the delousing building which was used in Auschwitz I? Then finally there was a test done with a control sample to see if in the building of

which they knew there had been no Zyklon B, and the idea was would there be a kind of random cyanide content in the walls, which was one of the claims which had been made about the cyanide contents in the crematoria. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Pause there, and take that last feature first. What did they find when they looked in a place where there was neither gassing of humans nor of lice? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Negative. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Nothing? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Nothing.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: So that eliminates that. Where they were aware that it has been suggested that you could find it anywhere because at one stage during the typhus epidemic in 1942 the whole camp had been fumigated? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I think so, yes. I do not remember exactly. Q. [Mr Rampton]: What conclusion did they draw about that, do you know? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: About these buildings? Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is pretty obvious.

A single fumigation does not leave any cyanide presence. MR RAMPTON: That is what Markievitch said in his conclusion. Then if you look now at, first of all, we are going back to 551, and notice, please, that all these concentrations are given in micrograms per kilogram of cyanide compound, is that right? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Is what is measured in micrograms the actual cyanide content of the samples? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I think that it is actually the combination. It is not the cyanide content, but I think the whole, whatever it has bonded with. Q. [Mr Rampton]: If you look at the second table on page 551, it concerns crematorium 1. Do you see that? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: And only in one column, under sample 20 — my Lord, the first block in the table is the number of the sample, and the second block is the readings beside B, the second row of blocks. Only in one, number 20, does one find significant quantities of cyanide. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Then look over the page, please and look, please, at 553 first. Now, samples 53 to 55, you tell us, were taken from blue staining on the outside of the building?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And two of those, 53A and 55, have relatively high readings, particularly number 55? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: From 57 and 58 the readings, you tell us, are taken from the plaster, from dark blue stains on the inner side of the wall; in the building, in other words? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: And both of those have relatively high readings, do they

not, particularly sample 57? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: 840, 792, 840. Then, please, look at the table on page 552 and look at sample 25 which comes from crematorium 2. In the text on page 550 you tell us that samples 13 to 52 were taken from places which served as homicidal gas chambers? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So that includes the reading in the first table of crematorium 1, and it includes the readings under crematorium 2, does it not?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: The first sample 25 under crematorium 2, has relatively high readings, does it not? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, it does. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Not quite as high as sample 57 from the delousing building, but higher, I think, than any others in these tables? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: 30 and 31 also have what is medium high readings? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Crematorium 3, nothing of any significance, yes?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I agree. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Crematorium 4, samples 41 and 46, particularly 41 again —- MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is crematorium 5.

MR RAMPTON: Yes, that is 4 and 5. In 4 again relatively high readings? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Do you have an explanation? I know you are not a chemist, but do you have an explanation, perhaps supplied to you by others, why it is that in these gas chamber remains Professor Markievitch’s team found readings of cyanide which are almost as great as the Prussian blue readings in the delousing building?

MR JUSTICE GRAY: He could read out page 555 of his report, could he not, on that? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: May I correct you there? Actually he did not test on Prussian blue. You just said the readings of Prussian blue. MR JUSTICE GRAY: This is the analysis of the material as opposed to the colour? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. But he did not test Prussian blue because there are problems with Prussian blue analysis in this. MR RAMPTON: You say he did not test Prussian blue?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Markievitch did not test Prussian blue. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Did not test Prussian blue? Do you know why not? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: One of the things which is very problematic, and again I am not speaking as a chemist, but I am speaking more or less on the basis of knowledge I have glossed from others. It seems that there is a problem in the formation of Prussian blue which relates to one of the main things,

the acidity of the environment. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Wait a minute, take it in stages. None of us is a chemist. At least I am certainly not, I do not know about his Lordship, and I do not think Mr Irving is. Prussian blue is a compound? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: A combination produced by a reaction between hydrogen cyanide and iron? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Is that right? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: That is right.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Now, what is the difference between Prussian blue then and other substances which react with hydrogen cyanide? Sorry, it is a bad question. You were starting to talk about the acidity being a problem. What do you mean by that? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: The PH level of the environment. Q. [Mr Rampton]: Yes? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Prussian blue seems only to be formed in very, very specific conditions, in which a number of environmental factors need to be present.

It seems to be that, in order for Prussian blue to be formed, one needs to have a PH level which is higher than 7. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can we cut this short? The PH level varied according to which chamber you were looking at, is that right?

MR RAMPTON: No, my Lord. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Very particularly in the case of the gas chambers the PH level would have been much lower than 7, because of the carbon dioxide being brought into the environment by people who are brought into the gas chambers. Q. [Mr Rampton]: So an acidity or a PH lower than about 6, high acidity, yes? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes.

Q. [Mr Rampton]: Is this that you are telling us interferes in such a way with the chemistry that the hydrogen cyanide does not react with iron? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Going back to what you were being asked about, namely the conclusions to be drawn from the readings which Mr Rampton has just taken you through, am I right, just to short circuit it again, that at page 555 of your report you in a few sentences summarise what the conclusion of Markievitch report was?

A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I do, and the conclusion was that it was a positive proof that the spaces in the crematoria they had tested had been used with Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide had been brought in those rooms, and I would like to make maybe one kind of caveat to this whole report, and this is if you allow me? MR JUSTICE GRAY: Of course. A. [Professor Van Pelt]: It is a problem which relates to crematoria 4 and 5, and

this is a problem which goes back to the Leuchter report. It goes back to any tests which have been done. That is the fact that the crematoria 4 and 5 which are above ground buildings, brick buildings on a concrete slab were completely demolished at the end of the war, and that all the bricks were brought to a big heap behind crematorium 5, and that whatever we see there now has been reconstructed with those bricks, but that these bricks in some way come from a random pile.

So it is very difficult to know which brick was originally where. MR RAMPTON: So the reading on page 552 on crematoria 4 and 5, the relatively high readings, numbers 41 and 46, there is no way of being able to say that those pieces of fabric that are now in what is supposed to be the gas chambers were there originally? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No, there is no way one can say that.

So I would say that any investigation of crematoria 4 or 5 on residual hydrogen content would be, as far as I am concerned, a useless exercise. MR JUSTICE GRAY: So we concentrate on the other crematoria? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes. MR RAMPTON: But the same problem does not beset the samples taken from crematorium 2. Thank you very much, Professor van Pelt. My Lord, before cross-examination starts, I should have done this earlier, your Lordship has I hope

a supplemental or supplementary report from Professor van Pelt? MR JUSTICE GRAY: I remember that there was one. MR RAMPTON: Mr Irving certainly has it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am just wondering where I put it. MR RAMPTON: It has to do with a very limited topic. It has to do with B Zyklon deliveries to Auschwitz. What I will do, if your Lordship does not mind, is hand up a file with it in, which I have marked “van Pelt supplementary”.

MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think I have it, although I am a bit puzzled I have not put it in the existing file. MR RAMPTON: That there is not much room is perhaps one reason. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That could be true. It suggests to me that I perhaps have not had it. MR RAMPTON: I am not going to refer to it now. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Mr Irving, you have seen this supplemental report? MR IRVING: I have indeed, my Lord.

MR RAMPTON: My Lord, also in the file, which Mr Irving does not know about but I have a copy for him now, is a document produced in consequence of a critique that Mr Irving published on his web site of Professor van Pelt’s book about Auschwitz. I suggested that it would be helpful for me if Professor van Pelt did answer to that critique which he has recently done and I have got, in case he was cross-examined on the basis of the critique.

It emerged from the questions that I asked Mr Irving yesterday that that indeed is going to be so. It seems to me, since this is quite detailed, that everybody therefore should have a copy. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Well maybe. I just am a little concerned that every day we are generating more files. We have enough files to keep most people happy for a long time.

MR RAMPTON: It is not something I am suggesting anybody should read from beginning to end, but Professor van Pelt may want, as experts do, make reference to it for the detail. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Shall we slot it into the same file. MR RAMPTON: I have done it. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Thank you. MR RAMPTON: I have called it “van Pelt supplementary 2 and 3”. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I am going to put the Rudolf report into J as well. MR RAMPTON: Yes, my Lord, that must be right.

Miss Rogers thinks it is about ten. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We have to keep a track on it, actually.

Part III: Professor Van Pelt’s Examination by David Irving, Morning Session (37.20 to 108.4)

Section 37.20 to 59.21

<Cross-examined by MR IRVING MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, Mr Irving? MR IRVING: My Lord, may I propose to proceed as follows with the cross-examination? That I briefly cross-examine the witness as to credit; I would then like to test your Lordship’s patience by showing the court for about ten minutes a video film of Professor van Pelt visiting the

Auschwitz site, which will serve a double purpose. There are things which he says during that video and it will also give us a sense of what the site looks like now. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Certainly. I am afraid I have not noticed the video, but certainly do. MR IRVING: I will then proceed after that to the court examination. Professor van Pelt, you are a Dutch citizen or Canadian citizen now? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: I am a Dutch citizen.

Q. [Mr Irving]: May I, first of all, pardon my rudeness, welcome you to our country and say what a great pleasure I had in reading your book on Auschwitz — for what it is worth, it is one of the few books that I have read from cover to cover and it was a book that I found very difficult to put down. I do not know how much of the book was written by you and I do not know how much of the book was written by your partner, Deborah Dwork.

However, a number of questions arise from the book and, after we have seen the video, I would ask you just in one paragraph to give the court a brief history of Auschwitz in the way you have done in the book so admirably on the basis of documentation. You studied at the University of Leiden, am I correct? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: Yes, I did. Q. [Mr Irving]: And you are now Professor of the History of Architecture at the University of Waterloo in Toronto? A. [Professor Van Pelt]: No.

The issue of my appointment is kind of confusing.