Hillman: David Irving responds:HOW very kind of you to write, albeit your letter again demonstrates a degree of ignorance of UK trial procedure and of the facts.

David Irving responds:

HOW very kind of you to write, albeit your letter again demonstrates a degree of ignorance of UK trial procedure and of the facts.

I “tangled” with
Deborah
Lipstadt, true:
But the entire wealth of your friends in the American Jewish community then stumbled drunkenly to her aid, with the AJC,
Bronfman, and Spielberg (right), and no doubt others who preferred no publicity, pouring their rude and greasy millions of dollars into her Defence.

It was a Defence which her lawyers formally and radically changed in the last weeks before the Lipstadt
Trial began, with Gray J‘s kind consent, inflicting immense extra labour and costs on me; the new
Defence was in essence (no surprise here) to pitchfork new and even more malodorous smears on top of the old, indefensible ones.

After that it was plain Balthasar’s Feast (“Und sieh’, und sieh’, an weisser Wand / da kam’s hervor wie
Menschenhand.” – Friedrich Schiller).

I do not recall any “disastrous” Discovery Orders, although we had several pre-Trial hearings on them, as
Lipstadt appeared not to appreciate the need to give voluntary full disclosure, and the Court had to whip her into submission.

Her Jewish lawyers at Mishcon de Reya used every devious trick (no surprise here either) to conceal crucial items – for example three raw TV newsreel videos which they had secretly obtained, and also a sinister
Document
Number 500, which showed her Canadian friends (the local
Simon Wiesenthal fast-facts concession) advising her, when writing her book, that given my hard-earned and word-wide reputation as an historian it was vital to “eradicate” my “legitimacy”.

I suspect they would have translated that first word as ausrotten.

Thirteen questions to put to Prof. Lipstadt the next time you see her…