Unless correspondents ask us not to, this Website will post selected letters that it receives and invite open debate.
George Brennan has a query about the trial and execution of Tesch & Stabenau chief Bruno Tesch, Saturday, October 18, 2003
Pery Broad and the Tesch trial
I WAS astonished to read item 128 of your Skeleton Argument as claimant that Pery Broad was a Pole who did not testify at the Tesch trial. From your own website one can learn that he did so testify and during Day Ten of your own libel trial you make a strong point out of Broad's Brazilian nationality. Incidentally was this the only Day when Broad was mentioned?
I have read of an affidavit NI-11397 [Nuremberg document] dated December 14, 1945 and presented in court September 29, 1947 which I guess would be for the IG Farben trial.
Perhaps you made a slip. Did Broad not testify in person at that trial? That still leaves the "Polish" question. To be sure, even the 1964 version of Broad's report which is presented (in full?) in Bern Naumann's book does read like something written by a Polish prisoner - but that is a different matter
I am curious to know on what data exactly Justice Gray was basing his good opinion of Broad's evidence. Would it be the 1964 text, or the later longer Polish-published text, or the oral testimony given at the 1946 Tesch trial? Would it be simply the things Professor Pelt said before him in court? Professor Pelt has said we must ignore whatever was said by Broad at his own 1964 trial and base ourselves on the "1945 testimony". But what does that denote exactly?
Bookmark the download page to find the latest new free books
David Irving comments
TIME has already flown since the preparations for the Lipstadt Trial, and I am not a Holocaust expert and have no desire to be; but having reviewed again my summary of the Tesch trial transcripts it is clear that the Pery Broad testimony was in person, and he was available for cross examination. Lawyers (who write skeleton arguments) often get things wrong: one more reason why I acted in person, on the basis that it is better to have a historian who is a poor lawyer, than a lawyer who is a poor historian).
Unfortunately Judge Gray paid a lot of attention to the defendants' expert witnesses, and at times hung on their every word, refusing to allow me to interrupt their rigmaroles to call for a clear and substantive response to my questions in cross examination.