 [Indiana
University Press announcement]
In which
Professor Robert Jan Van Pelt testifies on oath in
January 2000 during the Lipstadt Trial that he has
no plans to publish his Report as a book D J C Irving vs. Penguin Books Ltd &
Lipstadt, Day 9, January 25, 2000, pages 43-45
(Verbatim
transcript by kind permission of Harry Counsell
& Company) IRVING:
There is only one other very general
question on the question of credit which I would
ask you before we settle back and watch the 10
minute video. Your report is unusual in one
respect, and your Lordship may have noticed it, it
has a copyright line on page 2. In other words, you
claim copyright in this document. Now,
remembering you are on oath, would you tell
the court if you have any intention eventually of
publishing this? VAN
PELT: At the moment I do not
have. I think it is an unpublishable
document. IRVING:
I disagree. It is set out in chapter
form. It has literary quotations at the beginning
of every chapter, quotations from Mediaeval poets
and other authors in a way you do not normally find
in an expert report, I would have thought. I would
have thought it was designed explicitly for
publication at some future date? VAN
PELT: No. When the occasion would arise,
I would be very pleased if some of the things could
be used, but I have learned to respect a big
difference, for example, between a Ph.D.
dissertation and a book and there is a big
difference between an expert report, and I
understand this report as a means for an
intelligent judge to make up his mind about
Auschwitz who has never been there, which is quite
a difference for when one writes a book for the
general public. IRVING:
So why the copyright line? VAN
PELT: Oh, it is a habit of mine which I
do whenever I submit any manuscript to anyone, and
maybe this is inappropriate in this case. None of
the lawyers has told me that it was inappropriate,
so the copyright line remained there.  MR
JUSTICE GRAY: You can have an argument about
the copyright after this case is over.
IRVING:
My Lord, the reason I ask this, of
course, if the witness was intending to publish
this work, and he has now said on oath he has no
intention of publishing it, then I would ask
him the following question. (To the witness): If
you were to write a report which came out with the
conclusion that crematorium No. II had never been
used as a homicidal gas chamber, that Auschwitz was
not a factory of death, that Leuchter was right,
David Irving was right, whatever, what would the
commercial prospects of that be as compared with
the commercial prospects of the report that you
have actually written? Would they be greater or
less? VAN
PELT: It is difficult to say. It seems
to be that the book buying habits of the people who
are believing that the gas chambers were not used
for homicidal purposes seems to have been much more
active than for the people who believed that they
were used for homicidal purposes. After all, I
think that you sell more books than I sell of my
Auschwitz books. IRVING:
Not currently I do not. VAN
PELT: I mean, it is very difficult to
say this. Certainly, controversy seems to have
served you well in the past in a number of books. I
have been, I believe, in some way less
controversial and controversy certainly helps sales
figures in general, so I probably put some more
books. IRVING:
Very well. I will take your statement
that you have no intention of publishing this ever,
as you have now told the court. My Lord ---- VAN
PELT: May I just come back to this? I
said "in this form". MR JUSTICE GRAY: Quite briefly, if you
would. VAN
PELT: Sorry? IRVING:
Quite briefly, if you would. VAN
PELT: No, I said "in this form". I did
not -- I did not write this with publication in
mind as such.
Related files on this website: 
Index to Van Pelt-
Indiana University
Press announcement of Van Pelt's new
book
| 