Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
I notice there's a lot of about Irving in the Lipstadt trial and how he could have done better. I think these points of view are inaccurate. I make the following brief points:
1. Most of that trial was devoted to showing that Irving was a racist and an anti-semite who hung out with "extremists." The reason for that was to show that Lipstadt's libels -- and she did libel him -- were small beer in comparison.
2. The Holocaust witnesses we would have argued with, Browning and van Pelt, were only on the stand for like three days. That was what, 10% of the action?
3. It wouldn't have helped if Irving had called Faurisson, Mattogno, Rudolf or whomever. Remember that Irving conceded gas vans and Reinhardt Camp gassings. He even conceded gassings, as I recall, in those farm huts (the farm huts which no longer exist, of course.) Under those circumstances no judge would ever conclude that there were no gassings, which is where most revisionists place themselves.
4. Irving's loss was a blow to revisionism in the sense that Debbie and her crew could now exploit it -- inaccurately -- as they have, and Debbie herself can continue to dine out on the Holocaust (as Irving puts it.)
5. But Irving was never a serious revisionist, having done very little research on it and having arrived at no firm conclusions. Even so, his punishment is sad.
6. Irving's imprisonment has however helped us in a number of ways. Everyone now knows that "Denial" is against the law in many countries, many people did not know that, and most people -- 90% or more from my reading the Net -- think that's crazy. Many people have also expressed interest in what there could possibly be in revisionism to make it prison-worthy. Finally, I have been surprised to find blogs all over the Net where people are leaving uncontested revisionist points of view.
To quote a politician we may know, "We are Winning!"
(1) starting the case "on his own" against massive legal opposition, which shows a certain arrogance and legal naivite, including a dreamy faith in British justice which he believed would be on his side.
(2) not seeking the help, at his side, not necessarily as witnesses, of seasoned revisionists like Prof. Faurisson and a skilled, sympathetic lawyer (as Ernst Zundel had in his earlier trials, such as Douglas Christie in particular. Finances could have prevented this of course but then why did he proceed? Without that kind of legal help and more backroom organization help he should not have started the fight, and he did start it.)
He actually did pretty well acting as his own counsel in cross examining Van Pelt and Browning. But it could have been even better with help. It wasn't enough.
Nevertheless, on reading the record, in spite of my misgivings, I concluded that Irving was correct that the verdict was "perverse". On that record a fair verdict still could have gone his way in my view. I think that politically correct fear overtook the Judge and I still don't understand why the court had to find that Irving was a racist because of a few quips. That showed serious bias.
I think you and I have read different transcripts of the trail. Irving constantly miss-quoted witnesses, his own and the defenses. He could often not cite a source, or agreed he had miss-cited sources (which never helps at trial).
The crowning moment was when he called the judge, "Mien Furher". After that, his credibility was at an end. It was all very much like watching one of those ballon creations collapse to the ground.
Insignificant media circus matters.
Take a new look at how he undressed Van Pelt. Example: his offer to drop the case if Van Pelt would agree to join an objective scientific investigation of the gas chambers which caused Van P to burble that he couldn't do that out of sensitivity to the dead or some such nonsense. Why the Court accepted Van Pelt as an expert after he was exposed as not at all qualified in the field of architecture (as I recall) is also still a mystery to me.
Sure Irving could have done better as I said, but that wasn't bad.
People in the UK for instance are starting to talk about the issue, I've overheard colleagues in work and friends in the pub talking about his situation, and obviously, where I could, I've gently voiced my opinions.
It's interesting to note how many people detest Israel and do understand the Palestinian situation, many people in the UK are anti-US and are starting to gauge the extent of the relationship between the US and Israel and how it stems from the Holocau$t.
If he keeps getting his name and the issue into the papers, and onto the BBC website then it's all good, all publicity is good publicity, unless you're a zionist of course!
Mod1 - sorry for going off topic again, please don't delete this post, lighten up a little.
... his offer to drop the case if Van Pelt would agree to join an objective scientific investigation of the gas chambers which caused Van P to burble that he couldn't do that out of sensitivity to the dead or some such nonsense.
Radar, if you ever come across, or know exactly where that was said in the trial I would appreciate if you could post it here or send it to my message box on this site.
This is a theme that has popped up a few times somewhat lately. The first time I came across where Jews will bellow against a forensic investigation on the grounds it would violate Jewish burial laws and desecrate the dead was during a flare up in Poland. A Tomas Gross wrote a book titled 'Neighbors' accusing the Poles of being responsible for an alleged massacre of some 1500 Jews in the town of Jedwabne. Up until then it was blamed on the Germans. With the Poles now being accused they got themselves into a fluster and initiated a forensic investigation. The Jews did the foot stompin, trembling displays of out raged moral indignation against the plan on the grounds it would violate Jewish burial laws and desecrate the dead.
Then within the last couple of months some bodies were discovered during renovations for some building at a former German airbase. The Jews said they were Jewish bodies. The Germans announced a plan to do genetic DNA tests and that got the same resistance on the same premise.
I believe there was another incident in Lithuania where authorities wanted to confirm an alleged mass grave and they encountered the same thing.
The fact is, super fact at that, the best and easiest way to prove or disprove the Holocaust would be by doing a forensic investigation to any of the alleged mass grave sites.
When there are protests against doing forensic investigations they are really out to block anyone from finding nothing.
"If the Polish authorities will now scrape the topsoil and gravel off that slab and find the holes, I am ready and willing to drop this case the very same day!"
- David Irving
Trial transcripts here.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Legal/Penguin/tran ... index.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests