Germar Rudolf, Resistance Is Obligatory (2012; PDF-Datei

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
constitutes scientific nature, which are, however, mixed with (irrelevant)
historical examples.
Hence as a whole roughly two thirds of the expert report consist of
content not covered by the assignment. The expert has therefore essentially
missed the topic. (The Addendum of 5 Feb. 2006 does not address
the book at all which was to be assessed.)
2. Adherence to the limits of the expert’s competence
Although a scientist can and may express himself about all subjects
when not testifying as an expert witness in court, an expert report as
such ought to move within the scope of that for which the expert witness
is actually an expert. For as an assistant of the investigating Court
his opinion is ultimately relevant only where it clearly and demonstrably
supersedes the expertise of the court.
The expert witness is a historian, although by his own account not an
expert on issues of the “final solution” (p. 2). He is thus an expert regarding
the criteria of the nature of science in historiography, but not
necessarily regarding the evaluation of expert works on questions of the
final solution. Under no circumstances is he an expert regarding toxicological,
chemical, technical, demographic or moral issues.
Following the motto in dubio pro reo, statements by the expert witness
about historical issues of the final solution running contrary to his
assignment shall not be dealt with in detail.
That toxicological properties of Zyklon B are intelligible “even to
the lay person,” as the expert witness writes (p. 27), does not prove the
correctness of this statement, yet it does prove that the expert witness as
“a lay person” is not an expert in toxicology and should therefore abstain
from addressing this issue in his expert report.
A similar conclusion applies to the expert witness’s statement that
expected chemical-analytical values can be calculated (p. 27), but have
not been calculated by Rudolf (p. 28). For this question the expert witness
is not competent either – and he furthermore errs, as Rudolf has
indeed tried to calculate expected chemical-analytical values. That the
expert witness has not noticed this merely underscores his lack of expertise
as well as the necessity for expert witnesses not to leave their
area of competence.
The same is true for technical issues which the expert witness addresses
in contravention to his assignment and without expertise, so for
instance on p. 24, where he states regarding the cremation of corpses
294