Lipstadt on Leuchter's Qualifications as a Witness
Lipstadt discusses the demolition of Fred Leuchter's qualifications as
an "expert" at the trial of Zündel:
"With the jury out of the room, the court began to determine
Leuchter's qualifications as an expert witness. When the Crown
Counsel questioned him about his training in math, chemistry,
physics, and toxicology, he acknowledged that his only training in
chemistry was "basic ...on the college level." The only physics he
had studied likewise consisted of two courses taken when he was
sutdying for a bachelor of arts (not sciences) degree at Boston
University. Admitting that he was not a toxicologist and had no
degree in engineering, he rather cavalierly dismissed the need for
it.<36> To this the judge responded sharply:
THE COURT: How do you function as an engineer if you don't have
an engineering degree?
THE WITNESS: Well, I would question, Your Honour, what an
engineering degree is. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree and I
have the required background training both on the college level
and in the field to perform my function as an engineer.
THE COURT: Who determines that? You?<37>
Throughout the trial [the judge] made it clear that he was appalled
by Leuchter's lack of training as an engineer as well as his
depreciation of the need for such training. The judge was
particularly taken aback by Leuchter's repeated assertions that
anyone who went to college had "the necessary math and science" to
be an electrical engineer and to conduct the tests that he
conducted at Auschwitz.<38> The judge ruled that Leuchter could not
serve as an expert witness on the construction and functioning of
the gas chambers. The judge's findings as to Leuchter's suitability
to comment on questions of engineering was unequivocal:
THE COURT: I'm not going to have him get into the question of
what's in a brick, what's in iron, what is in - he has no
expertise in this area. He is an engineer because he has made
himself an engineer in a very limited area.<39>
Unknown to the court, Leuchter, who admitted under oath that he had
only a bachelor of arts degree, was not being entirely candid
regarding his education. Implying that an engineering degree had
been unavailable to him, he told the court that when he was a
student at Boston University, the school did not offer a degree in
engineering. In fact it did, three different kinds.<40> Later in
the trial, when the jury returned to the room, Zündel's lawyer and
Leuchter obfuscated the paucity of his training:
Q. And you are, I understand, a graduate of Boston University,
with a B.A. in a field that entitles you to function as an
engineer. Is that right?
A. Yes, sir.<41>
That field was history.
Leuchter was also less than candid about his methodology. He
repeatedly asserted that he obtained the "bulk" of his research
material on the camps - including maps, floor plans and "original
blueprints" for the crematoria - from the official archives at
Auschwitz/Birkenau and Majdanek. He testified that these drawings
and blueprints played a far more important role in shaping his
conclusions than the samples he collected at the camp.<42> After
the trial Kazimierz Smolen, the director of the Auschwitz museum,
unequivocally denied that Leuchter had received any plans or
blueprints from the museum.<43> He may have procured tourist
materials sold in the official souvenir kiosks in the camps....
...
As citations from Leuchter's report were read, the judge's
impatience intensified. He characterized Leuchter's methodology as
'ridiculous' and 'preposterous.'<46> Ruling that 'this report is
not going to be filed,' the judge dismissed many of his conclusions
as based on 'second-hand information.' He refused to allow Leuchter
to testify about the impact of Zyklon-B on humans because he was
neither a toxicologist nor a chemist and had never worked with the
gas.<47> Again and again the judge kept coming back to Leuchter's
capabilities and credibility:
THE COURT: His opinion on this report is that there were never
any gassings or there was never any extermination carried on in
this facility. As far as I am concerned, from what I have 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.<48>
On the question of the functioning of the crematoria, despite the
defense attorney's opposition, the judge's decision was
unequivocal. He could not testify on this topic for a simple
reason.
THE COURT: He hasn't any expertise.<49>
The judge might have been even more irritated had he known that
Leuchter misrepresented the extent of his familiarity with the
operation of hydrogen cyanide. He told the court that he had
discussed matters relating to the gas with the largest U.S.
manufacturer of sodium cyanide and hydrogen cyanide, Du Pont, and
that such consultation was 'an on-going thing.' Leuchter was again
being less than accurate. He may have obtained Du Pont's published
guidelines about the care needed in using hydrogen cyanide or oany
other of the myriad of substances the company manufactured. But Du
Pont, denying Leuchter's claims of ongoing consultations, stated
that it had 'never provided any information on cyanides to persons
representing themselves as Holocaust deniers, including Fred
Leuchter. Specifically, Du Pont has never provided any information
regarding the use of cyanide at Auschwitz, Birkenau, or Majdanek.
<50>
But it was not only Leuchter's scientific expertise, or lack
thereof, which was questioned by the court. The judge also
expressed serious doubts about Leuchter's historical knowledge,
which, as it emerged at the trial, was limited and often flawed.
Leuchter was unaware of a host of documents pertaining to the
installation and construction of the gas chambers and crematoria.
He did not know of a report filed in June 1943 by the Waffen-SS
commandant of construction at Auschwitz on the completion of the
crematoria. The report indicated that the five crematoria had a
total twenty-four-hour capacity of 4,756 bodies.<51> Leuchter had
stated that the crematoria had a total capacity of 156 bodies in
the same period of time. <52> Even if the SS's calculation was
overly 'optimistic,' the difference between it and Leuchter's was
staggering. He also had to admit that he did not know that there
existed correspondence and documentation regarding powerful
ventilators installed in the gas chambers to extract the gas that
remained after the killings. After hearing these and other
admissions by Leuchter, Judge Thomas expressed his dismay that
Leuchter had reached his conclusions despite the fact that he had
only a 'nodding acquaintance' with the history of the gas chambers.
To suggest that he had any more than that, the judge declared,
would be an insult.<53>" (Lipstadt, 164-167)
Even in history, the field in which Fred Leuchter gained his degree,
it seems he lacks expertise. As an engineer, he is clearly unqualified
to submit opinions to the court or anyone else.
... and regarding Leuchter's shakedown scam:
"On July 20,1990, Alabama Assistant Attorney General Ed Carnes sent
a memo to all capital-punishment states questioning Leuchter's
credentials and credibility. Carnes stated that not only were
Leuchter's views on the gas-chamber process "unorthodox" but that
he was running a shakedown scheme. If a state refused to use his
services, Leuchter would testify at the last minute on behalf of
the inmate, claiming that the state's gas chamber might malfunction
<68>. According to Carnes, Leuchter made 'money on both sides of
the fence' <69>. Describing Leuchter's behavior in Virginia,
Florida, and Alabama, Carnes observed that in less than thirty days
Leuchter had testified in three states that their electric-chair
technology was too old and unreliable to be used. In Florida and
Virginia the federal courts had rejected Leuchter's testimony as
unreliable. In Florida the court had found that Leuchter had
'misquoted the statements' contained in an important affidavit and
had 'inaccurately surmised' a crucial premise of his conclusion
<70>. In Virginia, Leuchter provided a death-row inmate's attorney
with an affidavit claiming the electric chair would fail. The
Virginia court decided the credibility of Leuchter's affidavit was
limited because Leuchter was 'the refused contractor who bid to
replace the electrodes in the Virginia chair'<71>." (Lipstadt, 170)
Lipstadt's Footnotes:
<36> Her Majesty the Queen vs. Ernst Zündel, District Court of
Ontario, 1988 (hereafter referred to as Zundel), pp.8962, 8969,
8972, 8978
Work Cited
Lipstadt, Deborah. Denying The Holocaust. New York: Macmillan, 1993.
Toronto: Maxwell MacMillan Canada. ISBN: 0-02-919235-8
The
original plaintext version
of this file is available via
ftp.
[ Index ]
Home ·
Site Map ·
What's New? ·
Search
Nizkor
© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2012
This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.
As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.
<37> Ibid., p. 8973
<38> See testimony of Raul Hilberg at the first Zundel trial. Her
Majesty the Queen vs. Ernst Zundel, District Court of Ontario,
1985, p. 1112; Zundel, 1988, pp. 9010, 9011, 9013.
<39> Zundel, p. 9048
<40> Shelly Shapiro, "An Investigation," in _Truth Prevails:
Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of "The Leuchter Report"_
ed. Shelly Shapiro (New York, 1990), p. 14; Arthur Goodman,
"Leuchter: Exposed and Discredited by the Court," in Shapiro,
"Truth Prevails," p. 78
<41> Zundel, p. 9056
<42> Ibid., pp. 8984, 9017, 9061, 9097, 9125, 9154, 9210, 9223
<43> Shapiro, "Truth Prevails," p. 56
<44> Zundel, pp. 8894-95
<45> Ibid., p. 8983
<46> Ibid., pp. 9052-53
<47> Ibid., pp. 9034-9038
<48> Ibid., pp. 9049-50
<49> Ibid., pp. 8976, 9052
<50> Ibid., p. 8951; Statement by E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Company,
Oct. 2, 1990, cited in Shapiro, p. 28
<51> Zundel, pp. 9028-9034
<52> Leuchter Report, p. 10
<53> Zundel, pp. 9028, 9034
<68> Memorandum from Ed Carnes, Alabama Assistant Attorney General, to
all Capital Punishment States July 20,1990 (hereafter cited as
Carnes); Shapiro "Truth Prevails" pp. 17 and 21; Newsweek, Oct.
22, 1990, p. 64; Swampscott Journal, Nov. 1, 1990.
<69> Associated Press, Oct. 24, 1990.
<70> Carnes, Op.Cit., 2
<71> Shapiro, "Truth Prevails", p.22.