Leuchter report
Leuchter compiled the report in 1988 with the intention of investigating the feasibility of mass homicidal gassings at Nazi extermination camps, specifically at Auschwitz.
[2] In contrast, tests conducted by Polish forensic scientists (who discriminated against iron-based compounds) confirmed the presence of cyanide in the locations, in accordance with where and how it was used in the Holocaust.
Zündel and his lawyers were joined by Robert Faurisson, a French academic of literature and Holocaust denier, who came to Toronto to advise the defense,[4]: 160 having previously testified as expert witness at the first trial.
[4]: 162 Irving and Faurisson therefore invited Bill Armontrout, warden of the Missouri State Penitentiary,[4]: 162 who agreed to testify and suggested they contact Fred A. Leuchter, a Bostonian execution equipment designer.
After having met Zündel in Toronto and agreeing to serve as an expert witness for his defense, Leuchter traveled with them to spend a week in Poland.
At these, they filmed Leuchter illicitly collecting what he regarded to be forensic quality samples of materials[4]: 163 from the wreckage of the former gas extermination facilities,[4]: 162 while his wife and the translator acted as lookouts.
[5] Drawings of where the samples were taken from, the film footage of their physical collection and Leuchter's notebook detailing the work were surrendered to the trial court as evidence.
[5] Leuchter claimed that his conclusions were based on his expert knowledge of gas chamber operation, his visual inspection of what remained of the structures at Auschwitz, and original drawings and blueprints of some of the facilities.
[4]: 163 However, the court accepted the report only as evidentiary display and not as direct evidence; Leuchter was therefore required to explain it and testify to its veracity in the trial.
[4]: 165 Similarly, Leuchter claimed that he obtained most of his research material on the camps (including original crematoria blueprints) from the Auschwitz and Majdanek camps' archives, and testified that these documents had a far more important role in shaping his conclusions than the physical samples he collected, yet after the trial the director of the Auschwitz museum denied that Leuchter had received any plans or blueprints from them.
[4]: 165 Judge Ronald Thomas began to label Leuchter's methodology as "ridiculous" and "preposterous", dismissing many of the report's conclusions on the basis that they were based on "second-hand information", and refused to allow him to testify on the effect of Zyklon B on humans because he had never worked with the substance, and was neither a toxicologist nor a chemist.
As far as I am concerned, from what I've heard, he is not capable of giving that opinion....He is not in a position to say, as he said so sweepingly in this report, what could not have been carried on in these facilities.When questioned on the functioning of the crematoria, the judge also prevented Leuchter from testifying because "he hasn't any expertise".
James Roth, the manager of the lab that carried out the analysis on the samples Leuchter collected, swore under oath to the results at the trial.
Green: In order for Leuchter or Rudolf to demonstrate the significance of their findings, it is necessary for them to prove the necessity of Prussian blue formation under the conditions that the homicidal gas chambers were operated.
[2] Also, while the delousing chambers were left intact, the ruins of the crematoria at Birkenau had been exposed to the elements for over forty years by the time Leuchter collected his samples.
[2] Similarly, Rudolf acknowledges that Prussian blue does not always form upon exposure to cyanide and is thus not a reliable marker, yet continues to include the iron compounds in his analysis.
[7] Since a building that contains Prussian blue staining would exhibit much higher levels of detectable cyanides than one without any, Green writes that Leuchter's and Rudolf's measurements reveal nothing more than what is already visible to the naked eye.
[2] In February 1990, Professor Jan Markiewicz, director of The Institute for Forensic Research (IFRC) in Kraków conducted an experiment where iron compounds were excluded.
[7] Given that the ruins of the gas chambers at Birkenau have been exposed to a cumulative 35 meters of precipitation based on climatological records since 1945,[8]: Introduction Markiewicz and his team were not optimistic at being able to detect cyanides so many years later; nevertheless, having the legal permission to obtain samples, they collected some from areas as sheltered from the elements as possible.
[2] In addition, tests conducted at Auschwitz in 1945 revealed the presence of cyanides on ventilation grilles found in the ruins of Crematorium II (thus also demonstrating that the Leuchter report was not the first forensic examination of the camp as purported in the title of the London edition).
