Sir Charles Gray, the judge
in the 2000 Irving
vs. Lipstadt & Penguin trial,
stated in his verdict, that
Deborah Lipstadt lied in her
1993 book Denying
The Holocaust
David Irving impressively
represented himself against
the gold-plated, diamond
encrusted Goliath of a
defence team financed by
Stephen Spielberg which
represented Lipstadt
A brilliant quote on
Lipstadt's performance at
the trial
"Her lawyers imposed a gag
rule on Deborah Lipstadt
during her trial with David
Irving - she was banned not
only from testifying in
court but also from speaking
to the press - because they
knew full well that a single
word from this
know-nothing’s mouth would
sink the ship. In her
account of the trial
Lipstadt can barely conceal
the lawyers’ contempt for
her, yet she is too
thick-headed to notice the
absurdity of her smug two
thumbs-up after the jury
announced its verdict. She
had as much to do with the
victory as I did with last
night’s performance of the
Bolshoi."
- Norman Finkelstein (August
2007) source
The following extracts are
from Lipstadt's book:
source
"An ardent admirer of the Nazi leader, Irving placed a self-portrait of Hitler over his desk" (page 161)
"The confluence between anti-Israel, antisemitic, and Holocaust denial forces was exemplified by a world anti-Zionist conference scheduled for Sweden in November 1992. Though canceled at the last minute by the Swedish government, scheduled speakers included Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, Faurisson, Irving, and Leuchter. Also scheduled to participate were representatives of a variety of anti-semitic and anti-Israel organizations, including the Russian group Pamyat, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, and the fundamentalist Islamic organization Hamas." (page 14)
"An ardent admirer of the Nazi leader, Irving placed a self-portrait of Hitler over his desk" (page 161)
"The confluence between anti-Israel, antisemitic, and Holocaust denial forces was exemplified by a world anti-Zionist conference scheduled for Sweden in November 1992. Though canceled at the last minute by the Swedish government, scheduled speakers included Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, Faurisson, Irving, and Leuchter. Also scheduled to participate were representatives of a variety of anti-semitic and anti-Israel organizations, including the Russian group Pamyat, the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, and the fundamentalist Islamic organization Hamas." (page 14)
Sir Charles Gray
stated in his
verdict:
"13.166 But
there are
certain
defamatory
imputations
which I have
found to be
defamatory of
Irving but which
have not been
proved to be
true. The
Defendants made
no attempt to
prove the truth
of Lipstadt's
claim that
Irving was
scheduled to
speak at an
anti-Zionist
conference in
Sweden in 1992,
which was also
to be attended
by various
representatives
of terrorist
organisations
such as
Hezbollah and
Hammas. Nor did
they seek to
justify
Lipstadt's claim
that Irving has
a self-portrait
by Hitler
hanging over his
desk.
Furthermore the
Defendants have,
as I have held,
failed in their
attempt to
justify the
defamatory
imputations made
against Irving
in relation to
the Goebbels
diaries in the
Moscow archive.
The question
which I have to
ask myself is
whether the
consequence of
the Defendants'
failure to prove
the truth of
these matters is
that the defence
of justification
fails in its
entirety."
Sir Charles Gray
also stated high
praise for
Irving as a
historian:
"13.7
My
assessment
is
that,
as a
military
historian,
Irving
has
much
to
commend
him.
For
his
works
of
military
history
Irving
has
undertaken
thorough
and
painstaking
research
into
the
archives.
He
has
discovered
and
disclosed
to
historians
and
others
many
documents
which,
but
for
his
efforts,
might
have
remained
unnoticed
for
years.
It
was
plain
from
the
way
in
which
he
conducted
his
case
and
dealt
with
a
sustained
and
penetrating
cross-examination
that
his
knowledge
of
World
War
2 is
unparalleled.
His
mastery
of
the
detail
of
the
historical
documents
is
remarkable.
He
is
beyond
question
able
and
intelligent.
He
was
invariably
quick
to
spot
the
significance
of
documents
which
he
had
not
previously
seen.
Moreover
he
writes
his
military
history
in a
clear
and
vivid
style.
I
accept
the
favourable
assessment
by
Professor
Watt
and
Sir
John
Keegan
of
the
calibre
of
Irving's
military
history
(mentioned
in
paragraph
3.4
above)
and
reject
as
too
sweeping
the
negative
assessment
of
Evans
(quoted
in
paragraph
3.5)."
