Furthermore, the amount of hydrogen cyanide used in the homicidal gas chambers was lethal to humans forty to seventy times over. Because of the intensity of the gas, only a limited amount of it was inhaled by the victims. The remainder was quickly extracted from the chamber by the powerful ventilation system. Consequently the gas was in contact with the walls of the gas chamber for a very brief time each day it was in operation.
In the delousing chambers the situation was quite different. According to both technical manuals and the accounts of former prisoners, the cyanide gas was in contact with the walls for between twelve to eighteen hours a day. One would, therefore, logically expect a higher residue of cyanide in the delousing chambers, and the blue stain that indicated presence of the cyanide was more likely to be found on the bricks of a delousing chamber than those of a homicidal gas chamber.
Both Leuchter and Faurisson argued that “it would be insanity” to operate a gas chamber in close proximity to crematoriums because of the danger of explosion. But records show that the amount of gas used by the SS was well below the threshold of explosion.{58} The Crown Counsel also pointed out that the manufacturer’s manual stated that three times as much of the substance was required to kill rats than to kill humans, and twenty times as much to kill beetles as to kill rats.{59} The Crown argued that if it had been safe to use these much larger amounts for beetles without the threat of explosion then it would certainly have been safe to use the far smaller amount for humans.{60}
There was also a basic contradiction inherent in Faurisson and Leuchter’s argument that the crude construction of the gas chambers proved that they could not have served as homidicial units without causing serious harm to the SS personnel operating them. The delousing chambers were constructed in the same fashion as the homicidal gas chambers. Irrespective of whether people or clothing would be contained therein, if one facility posed a threat of leakage the other would as well. Theoretically the delousing chamber would have been even more dangerous because it needed a higher concentration of hydrogen cyanide for a longer period of time.
In a certain gas chamber no cyanide traces were found.{61} Leuchter cited this as proof that this facility was never used as a gas chamber. But this particular gas chamber had been dynamited in January 1945. Its ruins were inundated with thirty centimeters of water in the summer and up to one meter of water in spring. The exposure to the elements lessened the presence of hydrogen cyanide.{62} Moreover, documents in the archives indicate that tests done on the grilles of the crematorium by Polish authorities shortly after the war showed residue of hydro-cyanide compounds. Three of these grilles are in the Auschwitz museum. Had Leuchter asked museum officials, with whom he claimed to have consulted, they might have shown him the test results.{63}
This was not the only time that Leuchter was tripped up by history. In one crematorium some samples were negative and some were positive. Logically all should have been either positive or negative. (In fact, they should probably have been negative, since this gas chamber had hardly been used.) Had he asked the authorities in the Auschwitz museum, they could have told him that this crematorium, which had been destroyed in the wake of the abortive inmate uprising of October 1944, had been rebuilt with both original bricks as well as bricks from other buildings. Consequently, Leuchter’s test was conducted on some bricks that did not even come from that particular crematorium. Nor did Leuchter seem to consider that the building had been exposed to the elements for more than forty years so that cyanide gas residue could have been obliterated.{64} He also took samples from a floor that had been washed regularly by the museum staff.{65}
In a move apparently calculated to enhance the drama of Leuchter’s escapade, a cameraman had videotaped the collection of samples. On the tape Leuchter stressed that he had used protective gloves in order to collect his samples. Since the tests he was conducting were chemical and not bacteriological the gloves served relatively little purpose other than a theatrical one. He and his associates also wore protective masks. But the masks were dust masks, which do not prevent chemical contamination (a closed-respirator system would be needed for that). Moreover, Leuchter and his associate were not consistent. The videotape of this sample-collecting enterprise reveals that sometimes they had the masks on and sometimes they did not. This haphazard approach suggests that the masks were primarily for show, not protective purposes.{66}
By the end of his testimony in the Toronto courtroom on April 20 and 21, 1988,[4] Leuchter had been exposed as having virtually no educational training as an engineer, and his historical knowledge had been shown to be even more limited. His historical knowledge was based on two hundred pages of Raul Hilberg’s book, The Destruction of the European Jews; articles by deniers; conversations with Faurisson, Irving, Zundel, and Christie; and documents Leuchter claimed, but the director of the Auschwitz museum categorically denied, had been given to him at the site by museum authorities. Judge Thomas ruled that Leuchter could testify before the jury about what he saw on his trip and compare it “within his area of expertise” to what he “normally worked with.”{67} Although it did not emerge until after the trial, what Leuchter “normally worked with” was not only far more limited than what the court assumed but likewise the subject of significant controversy.
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 not only that Leuchter’s views on the gas-chamber process were “unorthodox” but that he was running a death-row 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 death 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 execution technology was too old and unreliable to be used. In Florida and Virginia the federal courts had rejected Leuchter’s testimony because it was 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 that the electric chair would fail. The Virginia court decided that 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}
After the dissemination of Leuchter’s report, yet another blow was delivered to his reputation as America’s leading expert on gas execution chambers. Despite his claims to the contrary, it appears that he had no actual experience with their building or installation. His claims to have advised states on this execution methodology were denied by officials from the very states with which he said he had worked. According to Leuchter’s testimony at the Zundel trial, the Department of Correction in North Carolina, a state that permits gas chamber executions, consulted with him regarding the functioning of its gas chamber. In the Leuchter Report he reiterated his claim to have been a consultant to North Carolina.{72} Gary Dixon, the warden of the Central Prison in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the gas chamber is located, contradicted Leuchter’s claims. According to Dixon the former warden “vaguely recalled” that he had received a telephone call from Leuchter trying to sell the prison a lethal injection machine. Dixon denied Leuchter’s contention that he had consulted with North Carolina prison officials on gas-chamber matters: “Our records do not support that Mr. Leuchter performed either consultation or any service during the installation of our execution chamber.”{73}
4
Zundel was found guilty a second time and sentenced to nine months in jail. In 1992 the law under which Zundel had been charged was declared unconstitutional by the Canadian Supreme Court.