Alexander wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote in message
news:XGlEd.189552$8G4.88803@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Alexander wrote:
"Matt Giwer" <jull43@tampabay.rOAr.com> wrote in message
news:Me1Ed.206065$Oc.67206@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Alexander wrote:
Irving was also slated by the presiding Judge - I read the transcript a
while ago and while one claim (that Irving kept a picture of Hitler on
his
desk) was found to be totally unsubstantiated the fact that Irving was
known
to have given talks to neo-Nazi's, distorted facts and misrepresented
evidence was made very public. Lipstadt's testimony was compelling to
say
the least. Irving was however, probably still is, a very arrogant man
and
although he has dissapeared from the public eye I doubt he has given up
on
the Holocaust denial.
If you had in fact read the transcript you would know she never took
the stand and therefore offered no testimony.
D'oh - then let's split hairs shall we.
How is
"Lipstadt's testimony was compelling to say the least."
and she did not testify splitting hairs? Are you saying her non-testimony
was
compelling?
Try to use joined up thinking here Matt ... read the rest of the paragraph
before you but in.
I am only dealing with what was posted.
The libel case was brought against
Lipstadt and therefore her publisher Penguin for the book she produced
about
Irving. The entire case was based on the statements and testimony
provided
within the book by her during the course of her research. It was
compelling, and in the end the Judge agreed.
Are you now willing for the first time to actually read the testimony and
show
were the Judge cites the book as compelling? You should actually read it
before
you post another patent falsehood.
He agreed with the substantive points made by Lipstadt within her book about
Irving - everything apart from 2 issues - the claims about the damage to the
Russian documents and the portrait of Hitler. So I would argue that this
was in fact compelling and that, in the end, the Judge confirmed this by
finding for the defendants.
If you want to jump up and down about the semantics of the term 'testimony'
then be my guest. It doesn't alter the judgement or what the trial exposed
about Irving.
As I pointed out the finding is solely dependent upon the presentation in
court. The fool and his jackass did a ***** poor job. The verdict is predicated
upon that ***** poor job. As to ***** poor, it was as though in the US he had gone
up against Alan Dershowitz and his law firm. What would you expect but a skunk?
The judge cannot lawfully go beyond what was presented even though he did
include a couple side remarks not included in the trial. To suggest the
judgement is more than Irving's foolish jackass case is not reasonable.
It is not wise to try to show off when you
risk people who actually know the subject to read it.
I'll bear that in mind for later.
For the record, nothing in
her book qualifies as testimony in this context. No statements recited in
the
book were under oath nor verifiable. If you wish to use the english
language use
it properly rather than in a misleading manner.
Ah - so we're discussing context. Something you appear happy to use
specifically for your own linguistic terms, in order to provide you with
petty point scoring, but not actually willing to accord me the same courtesy
when it comes to common usage.
I do not see the connection. Please explain. The context I objected to was
praising her non-existent testimony.
What do you mean by disappeared? He is doing the same as he did
before the trial. Four of his books are to be republished updated this
year.
He said he was going to 'fight on' after the trial. But there was zip,
nada, bupkiss.
So you are also ignorant of his attempt to get another trial. How is he
responsible for that being refused? You really should learn the subject
before
posting.
So you didn't go to the site I provided for you then? He appealed, it was
rejected. He's not made any impact over this issue since Justice Gray
settled it. He might be circulating in your self absorbed little world
Matt, but as far as making any sort of difference he's sunk without trace.
Is he responsible for the rejection of the appeal? He attempted to do what he
said. But his appeal attorney had only the fool and jackass trial to work with.
I really don't give a rat's ***** about Irving as he is not interested in the
holocaustic myth nor is he involved in revisionism. I am only on the fringes of
both as the holohuggers attacked me on those subjects and I bothered to learn
their lies. And in learning them I started exposing them.
This whole thing started when I posted in response to one tear jerker that
cyanide does not kill that way. I read enough of American executions in gas
chambers with the same gas to know that. But the holohuggers had to attack.
Rehashing his old military stuff does not really constitute
anything he claimed he would do after the trial.
Publishing is what he did before the trial and what he is doing after the
trial. He was not doing trials before the trial.
He brought the trial himself and lost. He said he was going to fight on and
nothing has happened. Whether he continues to write or not is immeterial to
the actual issue which he chose to fight for. He didn't clear his name,
never has done and his appeal was thrown out.
I agree he was a fool to bring the case to court. It was much more valuable to
recite as a diatribe by a religion teacher to show how stupid it was. What can a
religion teacher say that is rational? I certainly would have run with the
relgion teacher. In fact I have for nearly ten years now. What can a credible
little twit like that say that is of interest to thinking people?
His silence on the issue is telling.
Your ignorance of the fact he was not silent is much more telling.
I didn't suggest he stopped living Matt, you are just being pedantic for
it's own sake now. Obviously can't bare the idea that he lost.
I took it as posted, nothing more or less.
Other than having had a fool for a client and a jackass for an
attorney what was his great failing?
The following inconsistencies and problems as identitifed during the
trial
and established by Justice Gray (transcript and other details about the
case
at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/)
Sections 5.2 - evidence of 'artistic licence' in interpreting documents,
major factual inaccuracies (the non-existence of Interpol, despite citing
it
as a source in 1932), transcripts used by Irving which do 'not bear out
the
figure in Irving's text' (in reference to a claim of 31000 frauds
committed
by Jews where in fact only 74 were committed). Failure to note that his
source for these figures was an enthusiastic neo-nazi and the only other
soures corroborating this he has 'no access' to.
Ignoring the available evidence about Kristallnacht and Hitler's
culpability
in those series of events. Misrepresentation and mistranslation of
associated texts, both primary and secondary. Lack of objectiviity when
dealing with possibly biased accounts. Again reference to documents he
has
'no access' to but when double checked, in this instance, provides no
reference to 'Kristallnacht'. Ignoring Hess' account of the same
incident.
Never mind the countless ommissions, evasions and obfuscations made by
Irving in an attempt to excuse Hitler his anti-semitism and culpability
for
driving forward the Holocaust. The idea that Hitler 'lost interest' in
anti-semitic activity when he came to power and the violent suppression
and
elimination of the Jews as part of that is simply laughable.
The list goes on and on.
As those conclusions are essentially false it goes to the presentation of the
presentation of the case by his jackass attorney.
You mean himself?
A fool and his jackass cannot be parted.
Usually attributed to Abe Lincoln, A man who represents himself has a fool for
a client and a jackass for an attorney. I doubt Lincoln was the first to say it
even in the rustic american form.
It has nothing to do with the
merits of the case. For the record I never thought it much of an issue to
bring to court true or not.
Irving did. He brought the libel case himself. You realise people only do
that here if they strongly believe they have a case to prosecute and win.
I realize more than a few people see themselves as Perry Mason. I have no idea
why Irving did it or why he thought he could win. I have no idea why he thought
anything he presented was beyond a jury and so chose a trial by judge. Sounds to
me like a man who thinks he is both nobility and living in the 19th century
against a rebellious colonial.
If he had watched the OJ trial or even Law and Order
reruns he would have done a better job.
Justice Gray disagrees with your assessment of Irving's ability to conduct
his own case. Refer to the link of the summary I provided.
Not in the least. It is not up to the judge to prevent self representation save
in the case where the defendent is clearly incompetent. The court has no control
whatsoever over the plaintiff's choice of counsel. Irving was not the defense.
It was not a criminal case.
For example the "star witness" van Pelt took great pains to preface his
testimony with a disclaimer he was any kind of historian, that history in
his
title was just an academic accident of the position he held. Irving did
work
with that. Irving also seems to have no idea of physical evidence. When
three or
four questionable translations were brought up in court Irving did ask for
a
percentage of the total but did not drive home the 1 in 10,000 or less
error
rate. There were lots of things. I haven't been over it in a long time.
3/4 questionable translations over a case that took days to prosecute and
covered numerous areas and issues? Hardly anything that is going to slide
the scale back in his favour. Irving is supposed to be an expert in this
area,
I have no idea who proclaimed Irving an expert in holocaustic matters. He says
it bores him and he has never written nor lectured on the subject. He declaims
the subject entirely.
and it was a battle ground that he chose by specifying the nature of
his concerns over the manner he believed he had been libelled. He has also
supposed to have studied the issue in depth but was shown, through the
available evidence, that there was no way he could reasonably make some of
the claims he did and classify himself as an unbiased historical researcher.
As you say, the evidence available in court during the trial as presented and
argued by the parties. It all hinged upon the ability of the fool and the
jackass to make the case. They failed miserably. Mainly they failed letting the
defense go off track right from the gitgo on a tangent issue of stories about
gas chambers. He thought he was clever saying if they could show physical
evidence of holes in the ceiling he would retract the complaint but that is the
closest he came to physical evidence issues.
I would have started with the absense of any forensic autopsey showing death by
cyanide and let it hang there. The dog ate my evidence doesn't hold water.
During the trial Irving had to retract or change his position entirely
that
there was evidence for Hitler's culpability and that gassing did, in
fact,
take place at Auschwitz He is happy to accept testimony from personal
aides
of Hitler as entirely accurate accounts of what happened, but dismisses
accounts of people like Hoss, former sonderkommandos, inmates and other
eyewitness accounts of Auschwitz itself in an effort to deny what
actually
happened there. He was shown to have admitted the existence of gas
chambers
in a speech he gave as well. As it was videoed it was pretty hard to
deny.
He had an opportunity to actually question living people.
So have I - I've met survivors of Auschwitz and Belsen what does that prove?
I have a brother who swears he saw on TV news vast stockpiles of Iraqi WMDs. He
is among the 70% of Americans who say the same thing. What do survivors prove?
The way things are going right now the American history of this war is going to
include those huge stockpiles of weapons being discovered. You can see such
nonsense happening now. Why do you accept it because it is older?
He has also reported
actually listening to the wire recordings of Auschwitz and discovering the
transcripts often bear no connection to the testimony even turning denials
into
admissions. I had taken the time to read some of the transcripts and was
curious
by the failure of the dialog to flow properly. It made sense after reading
his
discovery.
Cite?
Irving's website some place. I didn't take notes.
What precise recordings are we talking about here and how are you
relating it to the testimony?
Wire recordings were made of the Nuremberg trial. I simply recited Irving said
the transcripts materially differ. If those occupation troops were as skilled in
German as they are today in Arabic it is hardly surprising.
How does this counter the assertion that
Irving ignored evidence from multiple sources and individuals while happy to
accept the testimony of personal aides to Hitler as unbiased?
When dealing with stories one has to pick and choose. If one does not one would
have to believe in alien abductions, the loch ness monster and anal probing
alien abductions.
On one hand he talked with people who actually experienced the events. On the
other he had stories of unknown provence of people who could no longer be found
and when they spoke there was no penalty for perjury in the rare case they were
under oath. Which would you choose? Why?
He should have made that point in court as his reason for discounting
Nuremberg
transcripts. And as there was no penalty for perjury at Nuremberg there
would be
no point even if the transcripts were verbatim.
In addition Irving was forced to concede on a huge amount of issues
associated with the Leucther report and that the science that upon which,
by
Irving's own admission, he was 'converted' to Holocaust denial ,was
flawed.
I don't remember reading anything of the kind. Care to quote it? After all
you did read it.
And apparently you did not.
I never said I read it. I responded only to the lie about Lipstadt's compelling
testimony. How you took the form of my response is your business.
See Robin's post for starters then I refer you
to your own comments from the beginning of this thread:
"It is not wise to try to show off when you
risk people who actually know the subject to read it. "
And I have only posted correct material, that Lipstadt did not testify.
Don't think that lame ***** is going to get you off the hook. I try to post
carefully exactly what I mean to say and no more. If I give some rope for a self
hanging that is a separate issue.
For the record there is nothing in particular wrong with Leuchter's
report. The
most compelling comment on it was from the lab he used. A rep said they
would
have given different results if they had known it was from Auschwitz.
Unfortunately the lab is still in business. Probably working for attorneys
with
rich clients who can buy the desired result.
See Robin's post - apparently you missed the sections of the transcript and
the summary of Justice Gray that dealt with this ... again I refer you to
your earlier remarks:
"It is not wise to try to show off when you
risk people who actually know the subject to read it."
It was good he posted so you could try to save your sorry ***** but you fail to
meet the criteria for discussing this subject. You are free to read my response
to him before replying.
Read that quote closely. It does not say I read it.
I did skim it in real time as Irving posted it. It was boring and annoying
reading the stupid things he did and let happen by inaction.
Never mind his reliance on documents about Dresden which were shown to be
forged in 1977 in order to draw comparisons between the Holocaust and the
deaths in the firestorms of the city.
As the Dresden book was published in the late SIXTIES it is difficult to
see how he could have relied upon something from 1977.
Again - see Robin's post and be careful of jumping into these things with
both feet. It was _shown_ to be a forgery by 1977 but the fact that doubts
about its authenticity arouse earlier than this and yet Irving continued to
blithely use it to support his own bias speaks volumes about his
professionalism in this matter.
Again you take refuge in M'Lady Robin. Learn to think for yourself. For a first
effort by a kid only one forgery is fantastic. Consider all those who quote from
the Wannsee Protocal, and if two different versions with the same copy number
does not give a hint of forgery I have no idea what does. That is before
observing nothing in it is in the present liturgy and so even if not a forgery
was never implemented. No Jews were sterilized with X-Rays for example.
As for the pervasiveness of
forgeries a major Brit paper started publishing Hitler's forged diaries.
As
above people have quoted Nuremberg transcripts without listening to the
original
recordings. Forgery is hardly anything new to the history business.
Agreed - but The Times were not, are still not, professional historians -
just looking for a sensational front page.
Nor is the Times anything else it reports on. It is a reporting, news
organization. Professionalism requires it consult credible sources or employ
credible sources to produce materials.
Nuremberg is also not the only
source of information about the Holocaust and to maintain that some
transcripts are inconsistent does not mitigate the weight of evidence
available elsewhere. In any event I don't quite see how this evasion lets
Irving off the hook.
Good sir. The holocaustic claims are of a serias of capital crimes. That
requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. In a trial for a capital offense
the jury is expected to reject ALL testimony of any person who lies in any
material aspect of the testimony. Every rational person does. Testimony is not
evidence. There is no such thing as weight of testimony. Multiple person
testifying to the same thing is prohibited in a court of law.
First there must be forensic evidence of people who died of cyanide poisoning
and testimony to that evidence. As this has never been produced no rational
person would take the issue any further. If the dog ate your evidence, too
damned bad.
Israel just
arrested the manufacturers of every artifact that was believed to show
biblical
Israel really existed. It is hard to fault people who are taken in by
forgers.
He was also shown to be racist, anti-semitic and known to associate with
neo-nazis despite the fact his libel case was brought to repudiate these
exact points.
He was not shown to be that unless you let one side define what those
words
mean which is what the judge did. I think it is perfectly legitimate not
to want
your daughter to marry a Rastafarian. They bust people for smoking grass.
Actually very rarely over here. It's not really considered worth wasting
police time over.
That does not make them other than criminals. Would you want your daughter to
marry a pot smoking nerf brain who worships nature? Tell me about it.
If you can't see how Irving's comments are racist then we are certainly onto
a non-starter anyway.
Of course they were not. And Jews are not a race. Sammy Davis Jr. was a Jew.
They are criminals in England.
Er ... no ... they are not. They are just people who are allowed to live
here. If they break any specific law then they are criminalised for that
breach but being 'rastifarian' is not a crime.
Pot smoking, possession, importation, are all legal in England? I must have
missed that.
Antisemitism isn't what it used to be. When I was a
kid it had to be something overt.
Like back in the good old days?
Good old days at least had fixed rules. Today the rules are trendy and
fashionable and you have to follow the fashion. Which would not matter were it
not a form of bigotry and often with criminal penalties.
These days it can be as little as failing to
love Israel. They have become meaningless terms.
Which is why Justice Gray was very specific about this point. He agreed
with Irving that an individual had the right to _criticise_ another
individual or group. He was then clear about why this qualification failed
in Irving's case ... apparently you missed that part as well.
Which only indicates the fool and his attorney did not do an adequate job of
presenting the case to the court. The judge cannot go beyond the presentation.
It says noting about the issue itself.
What does that say about his standing as a historian who felt confident
enough to bring libel charges against a publishing company himself?
I have already described he and his attorney.
You mean himself?
You are copying M'Lady Robin?
As to his standing as an
historian, a bit above average if that is all.
Justice Gray apparently had a higher opinion of him than you do then.
I have no particular opinion of Irving that applies to this discussion.
Outside this discussion I know for a fact he delves into areas he does not
understand even to the point of how to manage an office. As most people have no
idea of that I don't bring it up. But the consequence is his case would be
different if he did understand. I find it amusing people who never got near the
military can be praised by others who never got near the military for their
understanding of military operations. People who could not organize a squad
talking about Patton. Laughable.
Historians are mostly court
historians. I have yet to find any geo-political history of WWII which does not
ignore or cast in a false light just about everything done by Mussolini and
Hitler and ignore Stalin had murdered more people than Hitler is accused of
before Hitler became Chancellor.
In your strange little world perhaps.
Black Book of Communism. Available from Amazon.
I have Jonathan Glover's 'Humanity'
sat in front of me and he goes through all of our wonderful dictators of the
20th century in no small detail. Including quantity which apparently is
some factor here, never mind that genocidal intent,
Knowing intentions requires reading the minds of the dead. Are you claiming
that talent?
regardless of actual
'numbers' is worth condemning from whatever quarter and does not excuse
those who appear lower down your little league table of tabulated murders..
In the moral world and legal world one murder is the same as a million as the
maximum penalty is death. You can rant, you can rave but you can't kil them more
than once.
Tabulation is just to show the moral relativism of focus regardless of reality.
Communism gets credit for 100 million in a single century. Intentions do not
matter to the dead.
You cannot claim to value a single life and consider it different from 100
million lives.
This entire Christian framework is philosophical ***** and a dead end. I can
propose conundrums out the ying-yang that cannot be addressed.
But if you want to play within a framework where one more idiot religion
vanishes unregretted along with all the rest as something regretable, I have a
holocaust to sell you. But it is of the Albengensians. Got all of them.
It is still rare to find Stalin given credit
for Katyn Woods even though Russia has apologized for it while still
refusing to reveal where the other 10,000 were buried.
He was a lovely bloke wasn't he? If you think that makes Hitler and the
Nazi regime ok somehow I'd love to hear it.
I only suggest it puts the ALLIES in perspective. And I suggest it shows the
allies created atrocities attributed to the Nazis. And if those then was it a
little electrocution swimming pool here and there?
Remember it was only three years ago that ground penetrating radar showed all
the stories about Treblinka exterminations were lies. That is another 1.4
million who were not exterminated.
You have to keep up with the times to know how to revise the holocaust story.
Quite hard to do after Schindler's List were gas chambers were portrayed as a
camp rumor.
In summary Justice Gray stated that:
These are all opinions and without context. Where did you find the list?
I quoted where you can find the summary and other articles in my previous
post. Robin has been kind enough to expand on some of this but if you can't
be bothered to go to the site, look at the sections I've been good enough to
quote from the summary then I really can't help you any more than that.
M'Lady Robin is making you look like an ***** for citing her. You should read
replies before you cite.
13.9
"I am satisfied that in most of the instances cited by the Defendants
Irving
has significantly misrepresented what the evidence, objectively examined,
reveals."
13.95
It is 'incontrovertible' that Irving is a holocaust denier.
He has never written on the holocaust and no one has ever defined it in a
functional manner so the term is meaningless. What do you expect when the
term
was invented by a religion teacher who never defined it?
Read the summary and the reasons for Justice Gray's decision in this matter.
Of course, based upon the case presented by the fool and the jackass.
13.101
Irving is 'anti-semitic'
13.106
Irving is 'racist'
13.167
The evidence brought to the trial does not 'have any material effect on
Irving's reputation.'
In other words, Lipstadt's claims and statements were correct.
Again it goes to the attorney and his client.
You mean Irving?
Read The Fine Posts. RTFP!
As to racist he did note all the
defense counsel in the court were of the caucasian persuasion.
So?
It doesn't mean anything except in a quota world of show coloreds.
What on earth does that mean?
Defense counsel, not being racist and not being able to find qualified
non-causian personnel sort of makes a case for race base aptitudes.
Anyone see any connections between total denial of available evidence
and
certain mindsets going on here?
Anyone here dumb enough to take story telling as evidence? Only
physical evidence matters, sine qua non.
The evidence was examined and in Irving's case found severely wanting.
Back to the client and his attorney.
You are still talking about Irving here aren't you? He was represented by
counsel at his appeal and still failed. His claims were consistently shown
to be empty posturing and poor academia.
They have only been shown to have been a butt-ugly court presentation as
nothing beyond the court presentation could be considered in the judgment. You
think you are proclaiming globally but in fact the case is local to the actual
presentation in court.
In
the case of Holocaust Denial it is not just the physical evidence
There was no physical evidence introduced at trial in any form. But you know
that because you read the transcript.
I can see I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. If you can't read
my comments in context then just don't bother at all.
Context that is false is not considered.
but the
continued distortions, lies, anti-semitic and racist motivation of those who
continue to propagate fabrications of history that are important to
identify. Behind every denier there's a little nazi desperate to get out.
You see the very fact that he acted as his own attorney makes the entire case
worthless to people who want to claim it means something. Which means you are
wasting your time trying to make anything of it. That could have been part of
his strategy, a long shot on winning but either way noteriety and for lack of
competent counsel a meaningless verdict.
Wow - I would really like to know what the climate is like on your planet.
On second thoughts don't bother. You're just another whinging denier crying
over your supposed martyrs for the glory of the 3rd Reich.
I recited only the facts. The judgment is solely based upon the presentation in
court and nothing else. That is the rule of law. You need to learn.
--
Bush says Iraq is better off without Hussein but
he never says how much better off.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3326
.
