Henri Roques answers David Cole

Henri ROQUES
90, rue Moslard
92700 COLOMBES

12 February, 1995

FAX to Bradley SMITH
C/o I.H.R.

FOR PUBLICATION

Dear Mr Smith,

I read «Another David Cole Adventure in Europe» and also noticed your advertisement: “NEW. David Cole tells it all to you about his eventful October 1994 trip to Europe in search of the physical evidence for the notorious gassing chambers, including his entrapment and robbery by the bad guys” (Smith's Report, Winter 1995, p. 6-8). My wife and I disagree with the version by D. Cole of his “adventure” in Struthof-Natzweiler (Alsace, France). Being a revisionist, I would like to put the records straight and tell how things actually happened. I have contacted P. Guillaume and T. Mordrel in order to confront their recollections with our recollections. This is what I have to say:

1. On October 26, 1994, we visited the alleged execution gas chamber in that camp together with D. Cole, an American camerwoman, Pierre Guillaume and Trystan Mordrel.
2. The six of us we were never locked from outside in the gas chamber in order to be entrapped in it! Simply the guard locked the door from inside and he had to open it once because tourists were knocking at the door, and he told them that the visit was possible only for people with a special permission (which was the case for our party);
3. The guard cannot in any way be implied in the theft inside Cole’s car;
4. My wife and I remember only one guard ; the same for T. Mordrel; P. Guillaume thinks that two guards came to the “gas chamber” but that only one stayed;
5. According to the guard and, later on, to the gendarmes in Schirmeck (near Struthof), this kind of theft is unfortunately common, especially in a car with a foreign license plate;
6. My wife left no purse in our car;
7. The fact that the camera equipment with a tripod was not stolen but only bags is understandable since it is easier to get away with bags than with a tripod (Cole had taken his camera with him);
8. Initially, I thought that it could have been a theft directed against revisionist people but I do not see anything which could substantiate this and, furthermore, the conversations I had with P. Guillaume and T. Mordrel tend to eliminate that possibility;
9. Cole's version could make the readers believe in an antirevisionist operation carried out with the complicity of the guards but I don't think it is fair to accuse the guards of having “entrapped” us or even perhaps participated in a theft.

Respectfully,

H. Roques