Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day018.20 Last-Modified: 2000/07/24 Q. I am only going to deal with this very briefly, my Lord, and this is the question: Do you ever apply your mind, witness, to the question of what pressures of a psychological nature or other nature may have been applied to a witness to make statements on which you have relied? A. I think you try to put your mind inside the mind of the person giving the evidence, and you ask yourself what interest they would have in saying one thing or another. So, prima facie, it would seem obvious that a former Nazi who was deeply implicated in the crimes of Nazism would have an interest in trying to exculpate himself in giving evidence. In terms of what pressures were put on somebody, then I think you have to look for evidence of pressures. Q. Can I stop you there. You say a former Nazi might try to exculpate himself. Would there be a temptation in a Fuhrer state to exculpate himself by saying that he was acting on higher orders, regardless of whether or not it . P-173 was true? A. We are talking about a different period now. We are talking about during the Third Reich? Q. Yes, that is what we are interested in here. MR JUSTICE GRAY: No, I think trials after the war of Nazi Generals. MR IRVING: Trials after the war, but suppose a General or an SS Obergruppenfuhrer like Karl Wolf or someone like that put on trial, would there be a temptation, hypothetically, for him to say: "Well, I did not do this on my own initiative. I was told it was the Fuhrer's orders", just for an example? Would there be a temptation do you think? A. No, I think that would be difficult, because the classic defence "I was only obeying orders" has not been one that has been widely accepted by courts. Q. But it was specifically excluded at Nuremberg, was it not? It was in the permitted at Nuremberg, the high orders defence? A. Yes. Q. What about in the German courts, was it permitted? A. Let us take the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials of 1963 to 4, and there was a very extensive affidavit there by historians which tried to sketch out the possibilities there were for evading orders, and indeed historians and law courts have always been exercised by the problems posed by that particular defence. On the whole I do not . P-174 think it is one that would recommend itself to people. It is far better to say that you did not know about it than simply, yes, you did know but you were only obeying orders. Q. How reliable would human memory be after 20 years, do you think? A. I am not a psychologist. I think that one has to be one has to be sceptical and critical about what people say, but you cannot dismiss it out of hand. Many of the interviews which you conducted 20 or 30 years after the events involved, I think that one has to be very critical and very sceptical about what these people are saying and ask why they were saying it and what interest they had in taking the line they were taking. But that does not mean one dismisses it out of hand. You go through the normal historical procedures of comparing what they say with the documentation that is available, preferable contemporary documentation. Q. My Lord, I have now reached the end of my prepared questions. I had prepared to ask further questions today but that was on the area you were not going to allow. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, that was on bundle E? MR IRVING: On bundle E, yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. MR IRVING: You have promised me additional time for dealing with Professor Evans. . P-175 MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I am not going to compel you to carry on if you have run out of questions. MR IRVING: I have questions prepared here but not in a form that would be useful to the court. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I think I have probably removed a couple of hours by saying that you should deal with bundle E later. MR IRVING: By way of submission. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I would not say I have removed. I have postponed the two hours it will probably take. So I am not critical by of you for having run out, but you have run out. There is nothing you want to deal with now? I cannot immediately think of anything. Mr Rampton, can you? MR RAMPTON: I cannot. I think it would be unsatisfactory for a number of reasons for Mr Irving to go back into the witness box ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think it would. MR RAMPTON: --- for further cross-examination. MR IRVING: I would be quite happy to go back into the witness box. MR RAMPTON: No. I was going to offer to cross-examine him tomorrow, but your Lordship said, no, that is not a good idea. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I think it is even less a good idea now. MR RAMPTON: So do I. All I can suggest is that we go away and . P-176 prepare, is it Dr Fox tomorrow? MR IRVING: He is coming tomorrow morning. MR RAMPTON: He will not be very long. MR IRVING: Because he will not be allowed to adumbrate on the matters that he was going to I think. MR RAMPTON: That is a matter for his Lordship, but if he strays much beyond what is in his written statement then I shall have something to say. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I have not yet re-read his statement. MR RAMPTON: It is quite a long statement. It is somewhat representative, but it is quite long. Normally speaking nowadays, judge alone particularly, the witness statement stands as the evidence and if I do not cross-examine the witness goes away again. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes. I have not played it quite in that way. MR RAMPTON: There is flexibility. MR IRVING: As he is an expert on the police decodes, he is one of the world's leading experts on that, I had intended asking him questions about those, but if Mr Rampton objects ---- MR RAMPTON: I would need to know what he was going to say. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Do you want to thrash this out? If he maybe not going to be able to give any admissible evidence, it is better that he does not have to come all the way here. Do you want to have an argument about it now? MR RAMPTON: No. I have nothing to say about what evidence he . P-177 might give about decodes because it is not in his witness statement. If he is going to give evidence about the decrypts, I must have a witness statement in advance and he had better not come tomorrow at all. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Technically that is right. What is he going to say, do you hope? MR IRVING: I was going to question him as an expert on the Bletchley Park operations and the extent of the decodes, and what one could have expected, what he has seen in the decodes, the work he has done on them. He has spent six months of his life reading right through them. MR RAMPTON: I think in all the circumstances I do need to have prior notice of that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Can we just focus to see quite what the issue is going to be? The evidence so far is, and correct me if I am wrong about this, is, yes, they would have been able to intercept and decode what you might call middle level kind of communications. MR IRVING: Also from Himmler downwards, from Himmler to the Eastern Front. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is really the issue. I suppose you want to see how far you can take it up the ---- MR IRVING: We could usefully ask him, has he seen any Hitler orders of any nature whatsoever, and also what he has and what he has not seen in these archives. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is certainly relevant, but I think . P-178 Mr Rampton does need to have advance notice so that he can consult his own experts and put his case in cross-examination. MR RAMPTON: I would need, if this is to be taken seriously in the context of this case, which I can see it might be ---- MR JUSTICE GRAY: It is certainly relevant. MR RAMPTON: I quite accept it is relevant. I need to have chapter and verse from Dr Fox on paper. I then need to have time to have the accuracy of what he says checked by others. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That is fair. MR RAMPTON: I really cannot just accept it like that. MR JUSTICE GRAY: If they were intercepted, I am surprised they have not surfaced. MR IRVING: If what has surfaced. ? MR JUSTICE GRAY: If high level messages from Himmler and so were intercepted at Bletchley on matters relevant to this case ---- MR IRVING: My Lord, with respect, I have brought to the attention of your Lordship already the ones of December 1st and December 4th 1941 where Himmler orders, says to Jackelm, "You have exceeded your authority and the guidelines. Any further arbitrary actions will be punished", you will remember. MR JUSTICE GRAY: That was a Bletchley intercept, was it? MR IRVING: That was from Himmler to Jackelm intercepted by the . P-179 British, yes. It is a very important message on which I rely very strongly. It indicates that one would have expected messages to be there. MR JUSTICE GRAY: As I say, it is plainly relevant. But I do not suggest you need to do it in huge detail given the pressures you are under. MR IRVING: I did not want to go beyond the actual messages I have already produced, my Lord. I wanted to ask him then on the basis of his expertise what else, what the scope of the documentation is and has he seen anything, and does the documentation cover the entire spectrum from the most trivial matters like parking tickets, all the way up to these mass shootings on the Eastern Front, and so on. MR JUSTICE GRAY: What I think Mr Rampton is entitled to is ---- MR IRVING: A little notice. MR JUSTICE GRAY: --- probably on one page, like one of the things you do for me, just really giving the gist of what he is going to say. That is enough. MR RAMPTON: Yes, I do, but I also will likely need to time to get some help with it because I cannot ask questions about something about which I know nothing. If I am told that I should not take Dr Fox's word for what he says, then I have to go and do some -- somebody has got to go and do some work. MR JUSTICE GRAY: I see that. We may have to lose Dr Fox from . P-180 his Friday slot. MR IRVING: We cannot do this by Friday quite clearly. In that case I will have to introduce him sometime next week, but I will fax to the Defence solicitors a one page proof of what he intends to say. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Dr Fox is relatively available, is he? MR IRVING: Except on Mondays. He cannot come on Monday. He is a lecturer I think at the University College or Jews College or University of Canterbury somewhere. MR RAMPTON: Can I suggest that he be deferred until after Professor Evans has finished? MR IRVING: Yes. MR JUSTICE GRAY: Yes, that is a good thing anyway. MR RAMPTON: It is much better from your Lordship's point of view and from the Professor's point of view. MR JUSTICE GRAY: We are not sitting on Friday that is now obvious. MR RAMPTON: No. MR IRVING: I hope your Lordship does not begrudge me the fact that I have not got another 45 minutes? MR JUSTICE GRAY: No. We will adjourn now. (The witness stood down) (The court adjourned until Monday, 14th February 2000) . P-181
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.