Why did Irving lose?

[Ixtab]

In the 2000 Irving vs Lipstadt case.

[Berianidze]

While he decided to defend himself, it seem the apparent cause of his loss in the libel suit was dependent on the fact that, even though the defendent (Lipstadt and Penguin Books) were American, the suit took place in England, where in libel cases the burden of proof lies on the defendent, rather than in most Western civil law systems where proof has to be supplied by the plaintiff. Judge Charles Gray (who presided over the case) explained:
As I have already mentioned, the burden of proving the defence of justification rests upon the publishers. Defamatory words are presumed under English law to be untrue. It is not incumbent on defendants to prove the truth of every detail of the defamatory words published: what has to be proved is the substantial truth of the defamatory imputations published about the claimant. As it is sometimes expressed, what must be proved is the truth of the sting of the defamatory charges made.

Furthermore, upon reading more on the case, it appears as if Irving neglected most of the evidence against him, and isntead focused on his right to freedom of speech, which wasn't in question during the lawsuit--rather than the issue of whether or not Lipstadt's book was defamatory. Also, Irving was only able to get the American psychologist Kevin McDonald to testify on his behalf.

Lipstein and Penguin books had a reliable defense, and conjured together a number of expert witnesses to testify against Irving.

THe concluding judgment by Charles Gray stated:
Irving has for his own ideological reasons persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence; that for the same reasons he has portrayed Hitler in an unwarrantedly favourable light, principally in relation to his attitude towards and responsibility for the treatment of the Jews; that he is an active Holocaust denier; that he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism.

Much of Irving's own evidence in his case consisted of his own unpublished works, that of which were seen as heavily flawed, which subsequently ruined his career as a mainstream historian.

[Sinclair]

But Lipstadt was the defendant, wasn't she? The burden of proof was on her. He still managed to lose.

Suing her in the first place probably wasn't the brightest move. It just brought attention to him, and to what she had said.

[Crowley]

In retrospect there is no doubt that sueing Lipstadt was a mistake. Afterall, he lost. Had he won, it would not have been a mistake. That's pretty obvious after the fact. Lipstadt had a consortium of big Jew money behind her including the holocaust-devotee Steven Spielberg. I assume that England is like America in that money buys justice.

[Sinclair]

Even if the court had ruled that he'd won, though, he still would have gotten the reputation.

IIRC, Irving did not become associated with Holocaust denial on a large scale until this case got a lot of attention, right?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Lipstadt had a consortium of big Jew money behind her including the holocaust-devotee Steven Spielberg. I assume that England is like America in that money buys justice.

Not really. You don't need a legal brain trust when your opponent is defending himself and knows very little about the law.

Rice is absolutely correct. If you're going to sue someone for calling you, in essence, a Holocaust denier its a mistake to spend the entire trial denying the Holocaust.

If he was going to sue he shouldn't have defended himself, or he should have sued someone on the issue he was prepared to debate.

[Sinclair]

Is representing one's self defending one's self if one is the plaintiff or whatever they're called in merry old England?

Wait... Who the heck would represent themself when they're SUING somebody? All he had to do was show enough that he wasn't an actual holocaust denier, and she'd be assumed guilty, and he managed to flub that.

[raven]

I'm in agreement with Sinclair. What was the whole point of him trying to sue a woman for defamatory remarks when his reputation would have been tainted either way?

[Berianidze]

Yes, defending himself wasn't perhaps the wisest choice of all; but as stated previously, what really did him in was his basically disproving that the allegations were defamatory whatsoever, and proving her point. By defending his right to freedom of speech, he in fact damned himself by UTILIZING his freedom of speech, and proving to the court that he was in fact a Holocaust revisionist, thus making the whole trial a waste of time.

Furthermore, even though he didn't bother to hire a lawyer, the legal fees not only ruined his reputation, but almost completely bankrupted him.

[Sinclair]

But he wasn't defending himself, though. He was acting as his own lawyer in pressing charges against Lipstadt.

And then it's as though he worked out how best to shoot himself in the foot. Why the hell did he get MacDonald to testify anyway? What did MacDonald have to offer to the case of "Irving is not a Holocaust denier"? He probably just said things that caused everybody to become suspicious about Irving's opinion about Jews.

Here Irving was, in effect accused of being an anti-Semite or pretty close, and he summons MacDonald to the stand, to basically talk about how Jewish activists might be responsible for some of Irving's troubles. Ooookay. We're not talking about great courtroom ability here.

[cerberus]

I assume that England is like America in that money buys justice
No , not the case.
David Irving lost beacuse he had no case to begin with , its as simple as that.
This is the simple reason why David Irving lost.
As far as the defendants go they had no choice to defend themselves and they did it very well.
Irving has made much of one man against many , that was something which he shaped himself , they had in fact a tight time limit to complete their research and make their defence.
Tyye acted in a professional and serious manner , Irving acted like a total idiot.
This cost both time and money. I would not make remarks about who funded who , under english law you have to say who funds you . ( as far as I am aware) so why the remarks about it ? It's not as if it had any bearing on the case , which hinged on Irving and his use of historial fact , he had no case - period.

He did make the maxium number of appeals he could and in the last one he wisely took on a lawyer.
The basis of his appeal was the Rudolf report- Irving withdrew this at the last moment and so had no new evidence to base his last appeal on.
Why did he with draw it I wonder ?
The weapon which would kill the "Holohoax" and he did not have the confidence to use it.
Irving blamed his lawyers , which was a lame duck excuse , stating legal procdure.
To date he has not sued his lawyers , again I wonder why ?
All in all a fiasco from start to finish.
Why did he lose ?
Simple he had no case.