"But she proved in a British court the historical truth of Hitler’s genocidal murder of six million European Jews during World War II to justify her characterization of David Irving as a Holocaust denier."
No she didn't, she couldn't, because that was the matter at issue, all that was at issue was whether what she had said/written was a libel or whethre it was a valid comment.
In any case the trial was opted for by the plaintiff as a judge only event and he, for cost reasons self represented whereas she and her co defendant, Irving's own erstwhile publisher Penguin wre funed by the multu million $ clout of the Yad Vasham, not so much Irving v Lipstadt as David versus Goliath.
As the piece say the Israeli government released documents late in the day, had Irving been represented a professional lawyer would have had them struck out as inadmissable, the trial, and donlt forget this wasa civil suit for damages, proved only one thing, the power of money and influence.
"But she proved in a British court the historical truth of Hitler’s genocidal murder of six million European Jews during World War II to justify her characterization of David Irving as a Holocaust denier."
No she didn't, she couldn't, because that was the matter at issue, all that was at issue was whether what she had said/written was a libel or whethre it was a valid comment.
In any case the trial was opted for by the plaintiff as a judge only event and he, for cost reasons self represented whereas she and her co defendant, Irving's own erstwhile publisher Penguin wre funed by the multu million $ clout of the Yad Vasham, not so much Irving v Lipstadt as David versus Goliath.
As the piece say the Israeli government released documents late in the day, had Irving been represented a professional lawyer would have had them struck out as inadmissable, the trial, and donlt forget this wasa civil suit for damages, proved only one thing, the power of money and influence.