ГУЛаг Палестины

when physicians refused to offer any assistance in this area.

At the second Zuendel trial in Canada, the judge recognized

his expertise, and ruled that he was an engineer by virtue of

experience and demonstrated ability, and therefore he would

be allowed to testify as an expert witness regarding gas

chambers. In some other areas, such as crematories, he was

not allowed to testify.

Rothe also won't tell you that, according to the

Boston Globe, Leuchter admitted to illegally collecting

20 pounds of building and soil samples in Poland, and

that Leuchter's "analysis'' has been thoroughly

rebutted in a report by French pharmacist

Jean-Claude Pressac. Pressac "noted that Leuchter

never looked at documents in the Auschwitz Museum,

and failed to study German blueprints of the gas

chambers."

The legality of the collection process has nothing to do with

the validity of the analyses of same. This is but another

example of the attempts to heap all possible negatives

because of the damage his investigations have done to the

accepted myths regarding non-existent gas chambers. His

sample analyses have, in fact, been independently verified by

the later work of both a Polish government commission,

Austrian engineer Walter Leuftl, and the inarguably qualified

German chemist, Germar Rudolf.

Shallit does not indicate if Pressac indicates what relevance

the "documents in the Auschwitz Museum" might have on the

matter. Given that much of what is on display at Auschwitz are

reproductions with obvious liberties taken to closer match

wartime accounts, a fact only admitted in the last few years,

one would have to be wary of whatever they purport to claim is

documentation. And the plain fact is that no "German

blueprints of the gas chambers" exist. What does exist are

blueprints of the various Krema (crematoria) which supporters

of gas chambers claim were "code worded" to hide the actual

use to which they would be put. These blueprints do exist, and

nothing on them supports the gas chamber theory--none of the

special provisions one would expect, such as sealing, gas

introduction equipment, forced air circulation of the closed

room(s) or adequate ventilation are indicated.

After a particularly traumatic cross-examination by the attorney

for Prof. Robert Faurisson, during which Pressac became

incoherent to the point of tears on the stand, he has retreated

from any active defense of his extremely flawed work, and it is

no longer cited by top-level historians. His alleged refutation of

challenges to the existence of gas chambers is a huge

embarrassment of a book now trotted out only by lay people

such as Mr. Shallit, and professional promoters of the gas

chamber myths.

With his false credentials, he convinced authorities in

several states in the U.S. to let him construct

execution machinery for their prisons.

Leuchter presented no false credentials. It is common for

self-trained individuals, particularly in fields for which no

academic accreditation exists, to advertise or present

themselves as Leuchter did--an "execution engineer." His

expertise in that field is amply demonstrated by work

experience. Shallit's comments are based on the events

following Leuchter's appearance in the Zuendel trial. A New

York based group called Holocaust Survivors and Friends in

Pursuit of Justice brought action in Massachussets based on

an obscure and never tested state law saying that people

working in areas involving public safety could not present

themselves as engineers unless they were licensed as such

by the state. Of amusing and revealing relevance is the fact

that the charge was brought and supported by a judge that

designing execution devices qualifies as working in an area

involving "public safety"!! Surely this is close to the height of

doublespeak. (See "The Execution Protocol" by Trombley,

Crown Publishing 1992)

But in 1990, according to the New York Times, his

misrepresentations began to unravel. The Attorney

General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois

terminated his contract after determining that his

machine for injecting cyanide would cause prisoners

u

The Alabama warden's actions were in response to Leuchter's

having testified against the Florida prison system when an

inmate brought suit against her electrocution sentence on the

basis that the antiquated equipment there constituted cruel

and unusual punishment, which it demonstrably did. The

Alabama produced letter to other wardens warned them that if

Leuchter tried to sell them equipment and they refused to buy,

he might wind up testifying against them. This libelous and

career threatening action might have brought great financial

penalty on him and the state of Alabama were not Leuchter by

this time a sufficient pariah who saw no hope of getting a fair

shake in court. The comments regarding Illinois describe only

an excuse given which has no basis in reality.

Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with

fraud in Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had

only a bachelor's degree in history, and was not

licensed to practice engineering in Massachusetts. In

June 1991, to avoid a trial in which he would surely

have been convicted, Leuchter admitted that, "I am

not and have never been registered as a professional

engineer", and that he had falsely represented himself

as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter

agreed to stop "using in any ma

title 'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the

Leuchter report.

See comments above about this charge. Leuchter did not at

any time advertise himself as a "professional engineer" but

only as an "execution engineer." He never "falsely

represented himself as one" as Shallit states. It is not even

illegal for him to advertise and work as an execution engineer

unless one would seriously make the case that this involves

public safety. It is not illegal in Massachussets to work and

advertise as an engineer in a great many areas. Shallit's

comment is based on surmise which is in turn based on

ignorance of the terminologies and their meanings. The

difference between "professional engineer" and "engineer" is

not a trivial distinction. The title "Professional Engineer"

(Massachussets equivalent "licensed engineer" in other

locations "state certified engineer") is that used to legally

certify documents as correct, and the certifier must in many

states (but far from all) have certain qualifications (which vary)

to do this. Such a certification places all liability on the

certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of

blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal

importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects

involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise,

which is directed toward insuring rapid death!

Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that.

Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the

case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has

nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do

with work in Massachussets.

Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the