David Cesarani's big lie about the Irving trial | Winston Smith Ministry of Truth Archive

Winston Smith Ministry of Truth Archive
[Note: As this is taken from an archived site, some links and videos below may not be working.]

Sunday, 14 October 2012

David Cesarani's big lie about the Irving trial

Advertisement

The Adobe Flash Player or an HTML5 supported browser is required for video playback.
Get the latest Flash Player
Learn more about upgrading to an HTML5 browser

Above is "Holocaust on Trial", a television documentary on the Irving vs. Penguin & Lipstadt trial, made in late 2000 by British television production company 3BM (now part of Blakeway), for Boston's WGBH and Britain's Channel 4.

British-Jewish historian David Cesarani features heavily in the show, and is listed as the "Programme Consultant" in the final credits, so the outrageous lie featured in this documentary is his alone, and not the narrator's who says it—he's just reading his script.

At 42:50 a "Courtroom reenactment" begins, re-enacting an exchange between David Irving and defence witness; Jewish Auschwitz expert Robert Jan van Pelt, in which Irving (portrayed as an evil villain) quizzes Van Pelt (portrayed as science incarnate) over the amount of coke needed to cremate 120,000 bodies per month, the figure Van Pelt claims that the Nazis stated their four crematoriums at Auschwitz II (Birkenau) could process. The real exchange took place on the afternoon of the trial's ninth day (Tuesday, January 25, 2000), and the TV's show re-enactment is a long way from being how the exchange is recorded on the trial transcript—it's more of a dramatisation than a re-enactment.

At 45:50 the narrator states:

"In re-examination for the defence, Richard Rampton produces the patent application for the Topf ovens supplied to Auschwitz for incineration purposes."

After which the actors playing Rampton and Van Pelt, appear to divulge the horrific details of the cremation capacity at Auschwitz. After which somber musics begins, whilst it cuts to footage of Leichenkeller I of Krema 2, at Auschwitz II, the "gas chamber" in which "500,000" were killed. But this is all a complete hoax by the documentary's "Programme Consultant" i.e. David Cesarani.

Richard Rampton (the defence barrister), began his re-examination of Robert Jan van Pelt on the afternoon of the trial's eleventh day (Thursday, January 27, 2000), two days after Irving had the exchange with Van Pelt which was re-enacted in the documentary. And Rampton did produce a patent application from Topf during his re-examination, but what the actor playing Van Pelt is reading out, is not—as the corrupt documentary insinuates—a war-time Topf patent application, but a report compiled 40 years after the war, about the said Topf patent application.

The impression the documentary intentionally gives, is that Van Pelt proved at the trial, with a genuine war time document on Auschwitz's cremation capacity, that the Nazis possessed the ability to cremate a human body with just 3.5kg of coke. When in reality, he just read from a mid-1980's report on a proposed oven, which never got off the drawing board. As you can see, the quote the actor playing Van Pelt reads, appears in the real Van Pelt's expert report for the trial:

"Pre-heating of such an oven should take at least two days. After this preheating the oven will not need any more fuel due to the heat produced by the corpses. It will be able to maintain its necessary high temperature through self-heating. But to allow it to maintain a constant temperature, it would have become necessary to introduce at the same time so-called well-fed and so-called emaciated corpses, because one can only guarantee continuous high temperatures through the emission of human fat.61"

61 Report Klaus and Christel Kunz, 25 April 1985, on patent application T 58240 Kl. 24 for a “Kontinuierliche arbeitender Leichen-Verbrennungsofen für Massenbetrieb,” Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum in Oswiecim, ms. BW 30/44.

- The Pelt Report (1999). By Professor Robert Jan van Pelt. p.305 & 317.

"we use subterfuges to circumvent him." - Talmud, Baba Kamma 113a

Richard Rampton, even tired to pull the same trick off during the trial. Rampton got Van Pelt to read the 1985 report (which was quoted in Van Pelt's report), after giving the impression to the court it was the November 5, 1942 Topf patent application he was referring to. But to Justice Gray's credit, he stated: "What you quote in your report does not read like a patent application. Is it a quote from the patent application?" After Gray discovered the ruse, Van Pelt apologised, but to Gray's detriment, he stated: "It probably does not affect the point."

For me to detail in full Rampton's attempted subterfuge, would decuple the length of this article. But it can be read on the trial transcript (Day 11, p.159-164). And details of the patent application, and the 1985 report about the patent application, can be read in Van Pelt's expert report for the trial (beginning in the paragraph in which footnote 806 is cited).

Not to be missed for any serious Revisionist, is Carlo Mattagno's thorough debunking of the 1985 report on the patent application, and the completely absurd inferences Van Pelt took from it (Case for Sanity, from p.446).

Posted by The Black Rabbit of Inlé at 20:03

3 comments:

Anonymous15 October 2012 03:35
The 2000 Irving Lipstadt trial was actually of crucial importance for the holocaust industry because at that time the industry was building up to peak. I do remember the daily reports in the Telegraph and Times and it was headline news when the judgement came out against Irving. I do wonder what the millions of newspaper readers made of this when after all they had been taught for decades about the Nazi gas chambers etc.
After all if it was so absurd to deny the " obvious" why was the press so ecstatic when Irving lost? it would have been interesting to have been in the editorial rooms at the time and see what pressure was being exerted.
By the way what has become of Judge Grey?
ReplyDelete
Replies
The Black Rabbit of Inlé15 October 2012 06:10
Yes, I remember it being huge news too. Although back then, I was young and not in the slightest bit suspicious of the "H".

Apparently Gray's presiding over compo for victims of Rupert Murdoch's phone hacking:
http://www.themediabriefing.com/professions/high-court-judge

Delete
Reply
who+dares+wings18 October 2012 12:29
"History is important-far too important to be left to the historians." Gray and Rampton were both involved in another revisionist libel case in l989 - Aldington vs Tolstoy. Gray disingenuously told the Guardian, after his verdict against Irving, that he didn't know why he was chosen to preside over the case.
"He doesn't know why it fell to him, the most junior of the three judges who hear libel cases, to preside over what may well prove to be his case of a lifetime. Appointed to the bench less than two years ago, 57-year-old Gray had been a leading libel QC, but had no historical background; he read PPE at Oxford.

In the 1989 Tolstoy-Aldington case, he had a dry run of sorts as Aldington's silk: mass deaths, the second world war, the search for historical truth, high emotions against the backdrop of a sober law court. Rampton, as Tolstoy's counsel, was his opponent in that case. "The Tolstoy case was hard," recalls Rampton, "but this [the Irving case] was harder for me. I knew the broad outline but I had no idea of the detail. The worst thing for me was to have to go and visit Auschwitz." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/apr/17/law.claredyer

"In July 1995, the European Court of Human Rights concluded unanimously that the British Government had violated Tolstoy's rights in respect of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights, although this referred strictly to the amount of the damages awarded against him and did not overturn the guilty verdict of his libel action. The Times commented in a leading article:

'In its judgment yesterday in the case of Count Nikolai Tolstoy, the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Britain in important respects, finding that the award of £1.5 million levelled against the Count by a jury in 1989 amounted to a violation of his freedom of expression. Parliament will find the implications of this decision difficult to ignore.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Tolstoy

Rampton and Gray are "the Laurel and Hardy of Legislated History."
ReplyDelete
Add comment

Back to the Winston Smith Ministry of Truth Archive

Back to our section on W.W. II Revisionism