The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day008.27

Archive/File: people/i/irving.david/libel.suit/transcripts/day008.27
Last-Modified: 2000/07/20

   MR RAMPTON:  It is not a mortuary.  If it is a gas chamber,
        Mr Irving, and the concentration used is contrary to what
        Mr Fred Leuchter unjustifiably assumed, contrary to its
        being 3,200 parts per million, it is something around
        parts per million or, as Mr Beer suggests, 100 parts
        million, then any need to pay serious attention to
        ventilation is much reduced, is it not?
   A.   That would be a logical conclusion, yes.
   Q.   It will be a logical conclusion, would it not, that
        risk of contamination of water in the sewers is much
        reduced, perhaps to complete insignificance?
   A.   That would be another logical conclusion.
   Q.   It would be a logical conclusion that the need for the
        people administering the poison gas to take what I

.          P-51

        call strong security precautions, safety precautions,
        much reduced, is it not?
   A.   That would be a logical conclusion to your hypothesis,
   Q.   It means, does it not, Mr Irving, that the time which
        to be waited before the sonder commander can go in and
        the bodies out, whether or not they are wearing gas
        is much reduced, is it not?
   A.   This would be the logical conclusion of your
   Q.   Above all, it means this, does it not, that the
        by Mr Leuchter of the small traces of cyanide
compounds in
        material taken from the walls of the alleged gas
        at crematorium (iii) in Birkenhau is entirely
        with a low concentration having been used in the first
   A.   No.
   Q.   Why?
   A.   You have to take various other factors into
        consideration.  It is a totally false logic.  We know
        the other documentation that your witness is going to
        present that these buildings had been freshly
        they were made of concrete.  You are shaking your
   Q.   Because only one building has been reconstructed.
   A.   Freshly constructed at the time they were put in ----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  "Freshly" not "re".

.          P-52

   MR RAMPTON:  I see.
   A.   They were made -- they were raw, they were green
        concrete.  The concrete was still sweating.  You are
        shaking your head.
   Q.   I am shaking my head, Mr Irving, simply because you
        plain wrong.  If you had taken the trouble to go to
        Birkenhau, you would have seen on the walls of the
        Leichenkellers in (ii) and (iii) remains, quite
        substantial remains, of a coating on the walls,
plaster or
   A.   We shall be producing photographs of the interior of
        Liechenkeller (1) and the other buildings which show
        clearly there is no coating on the walls.
   Q.   Mr Irving, look at it this way.  Suppose that -- some
        the coating has fallen off, I quite agree.
   A.   No.  This is the original interior.
   Q.   Mr Irving, I have seen it.  Do not argue with me.
        with Professor van Pelt.  If you are going to produce
   A.   I am providing an answer to your points.  You may not
        the answers, but these are the answers you get from
   Q.   Mr Irving, if you are going to produce evidence that
        is no coating to be found on any of the remains of
        LiechenKellar (1) in crematoria (ii) and (iii) at
        Birkenhau, I am happy to see it.  I shall admit fault
        you are right.  Mr Irving -----
   A.   Can I continue with the point I was making?

.          P-53

   Q.   Yes.
   A.   This is fresh concrete.  Fresh concrete sweats, I
        I have worked in a concrete gang myself for three
        with John Lang.  Concrete is very alkaline.  You have
        wear gloves when you are working with it unless you
        your fingers to end up rotting away.  Hydrogen cyanide
        an acid.  They react fiercely, even in small
        You would expect to see precisely the kind of chemical
        compounds and changes which would have produced
        lasting results ----
   Q.   Mr Irving ----
   A.   --- even in small quantity, even in small dosages.
   Q.   (A) not if the walls are coated, and (B) not probably
        the concentration is as low as 300 parts per million.
   A.   There are we are in terra incognita ----
   Q.   Well, you are.
   A.   --- Mr Rampton, because we do not know what the
        qualifications of this particular author are.  We know
        about the scientific qualifications of Professor van
        Pelt.  We know about the scientific qualifications of
        other experts in this case.  It would be very
        indeed to attach as much weight as you are seeking to
        to this critique of forensic examinations by an
        correspondent who does not give us any details of his
        chemical or scientific qualifications purely because
        hostile to the Leuchter report, puts in the paragraph

.          P-54

        the end saying deeply flawed.  You cannot do that kind
        weighing up.  You have to -- yes, my Lord.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  In a way, you are slightly perverting the
        argument.  I do not mean that in a critical sense.
        point that is really being made by the South African
        engineer, Crabtree, is really that the fundamental
        of Leuchter's argument can be, as it were, turned on
        head so that really Leuchter's conclusions are
        diametrically wrong.  Is that not what Crabtree is
   A.   This is what he says, my Lord.  And let me just, if I
        just turn the wheel back very slightly and remind you
        the last words of my introduction to the Leuchter
        The ball is now in their court.  This report is very
        intended to provoke precisely the kind of discussion
        is now arising.
   Q.   No, but my trouble with your evidence -- let me make
        clear -- is that you are, as it were, criticising
        Crabtree's conclusion that the level would have been
        ppm or 300 ppm?
   MR RAMPTON:  My Lord, this is Beer, not Crabtree, this one.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I am sorry.
   MR RAMPTON:  Crabtree is an earlier one.  I may go back to
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Yes, but are you criticising Beer's
        conclusion that it would have been 100 to 300 ppm,
        really what we should be addressing is whether
        assumption of 3,200 ppm was a legitimate and sensible

.          P-55

        assumption to be making; is that not right?
   A.   I completely agree with you.
   Q.   Do you follow the point I am putting to you?
   A.   I completely agree and you are absolutely right.
        are probably concessions have to be made at both ends
        this scale.
   Q.   That may well be right, but let us focus on Leuchter's
        assumption of the very high concentrate?
   A.   My Lord, you will see that in the bundle of
        which your Lordship has read only one item under No.
        I wrote to all parties concerned saying:  "Clearly,
        criticisms I am now receiving have to be taken on
        and we have to do something about it".  Back came the
        objection from Mr Zundel:  "This is a court affidavit
        which we cannot publish it in an altered form.  We can
        only continue to publish it in the form as originally
        submitted".  So we are at a slight -- over a bit of a
        barrel there.  It is not as easy as your Lordship
                  The other point that I thought I had made is
        that the Leuchter report was intended to provoke
        the discussion which we have succeeded in provoking at
        every level, including the scientific discussion.
   MR RAMPTON:  But, Mr Irving, I am diverting slightly.  I am
        coming back to Leichenkeller (1) in crematoria (ii)
        (iii) in a moment.  You have never ever publicly
        acknowledged the powerful -- no, I am going to use
this --

.          P-56

        cogent, very cogent, critiques which you have received
        the Leuchter report?
   A.   Because, in the meantime, of course, Leuchter had been
        replicated by other experts.  At the very press
        that you read excerpts out from, I was challenged on
        point, and I said, "If you don't like Leuchter's
        go and do the tests yourself and prove that I am a
        nincompoop", I think was the word I used.
   Q.   Professor Markievitch did just that and did prove that
        were a nincompoop, did he not?
   A.   Are you going to put his report in evidence to the
   Q.   It is here.
   A.   Shall we say that when we get to it?
   Q.   Yes, we will look at it.  It is not done until 1994.
   A.   There is also an earlier report conducted in 1945.
   Q.   That is in German and we are certainly going to look
        that.  That is the one from Cracow in December 1945.
        back to this question.
   A.   And, of course, Gelmar Rudolf did a much more detailed
        scientific test.
   Q.   I am sure you will refer to that in your evidence at
   A.   It cannot be ignored.  He is a qualified scientist.
        only reason he did not get his doctorate was precisely
        because of coming up with politically incorrect
        on this matter.

.          P-57

   Q.   Mr Irving, the fact is, though you evidently do not
        it, that the walls of Leichenkeller I and crematoria 2
        3 are not made of concrete at all.
   A.   We are talk about the roof, the ceiling.
   Q.   You are talking now about the roof, are you?
   A.   The cyanide was not exactly selective about where it
   Q.   Do you agree with me that, if the concentration needed
        kill lice is 22 times greater than that needed to kill
        human beings -- I am not suggesting this is an exact
        proportion -- it is more likely that you will find 40
        years later or whatever it is, 50 years later, you
        find residual traces of hydrogen cyanide in the
        facility than you will in the supposed gas chamber?
   A.   They carried out controlled tests on buildings where
        had been no cyanide used whatsoever, not just in these
        camps but also in for example in Bavaria, and found
        exactly the same in significant levels.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I do not think that that is an answer to
        question at all.
   A.   Very well.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Do you want the question repeated?
   A.   If those figures are correct, then obviously you would
        expect substantially more.  This is correct, but you
        certainly would not expect nothing significant in the
        alleged homicidal gas chambers and that is what all

.          P-58

        tests so far have established.
   MR RAMPTON:  Would you please turn to tab 9 of this bundle?
        is a very short extract?
   A.   Oh, yes, Dr Roth.
   Q.   Tell me who Dr Roth is?
   A.   Dr Roth was the forensic analyst who was employed by
        Zundel's defence team to carry out the quantitative
        qualitative analysis of the 30 odd samples which were
        brought back by Mr Leuchter from his visit to
Auschwitz in
        February 1988.
   Q.   Thank you very much.  Now I will read out what he said
        a television----
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  Mr Rampton, you are assuming quite often
        knowledge on my part than I possess.  You are now
        at tab 9?
   MR RAMPTON:  Tab 9, my Lord, Dr Roth.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  I know nothing about Dr Roth at all.
   MR RAMPTON:  Mr Irving has just said that he is the chemist in
        charge of the Leuchter analysis.
   A.   He was the one who actually carried out the tests on the
        samples that Leuchter brought back.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  He is the chemist from the independent company?
   A.   In New England, yes.  The Cornell University or something.
   MR JUSTICE GRAY:  It does sometimes help me if I have a little
        more context.  My Lord, this transcript is, I believe from

.          P-59

        the film Dr Death, Mr Death, so we do not know if it is a
        complete transcript or not, but I accept for the purposes
        that it is.

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.