The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation - Holocaust Handbooks

SANTIAGO ALVAREZ, THE GAS VANS 197
be ascertained once more during the trial, be it by the interpreter or
in another way […]. Moreover the verdict would not be based on a
potential violation: The design of the gas vans was undisputed; the
jury court did not use the statements by camp commander Piller to
the detriment of the defendants (verdict under B.III.2b).”
Since this quote is about the deputy camp commander Piller, the relevant
passage at the end of this paragraph B.III.2b ought to be mentioned
here (p. 296):
“Hence it has been ascertained that the statement by Piller is incorrect,
wrongfully incriminating the defendant.”
I have analyzed Piller’s sore-thumb “statement” about the valvemurder
within two to three minutes already in chapter 3.6.2.2.
Regarding the inspection of a “so-called gas van,” the alleged “findings”
could have been challenged in court, but in that case neither the
judges nor the defense lawyers were very curious and preferred to hide
behind the text so that they did not have to challenge their own persuasions,
even though the use of the adjective “so-called” may indicated
that even the judges had their qualms. As I have quoted in chapter 2.1.
(p. 33), this inspection of a “so-called gas van” did indeed come to the
conclusion that this was not a gas van, hence the only thing this document
introduced by the court should have served to do would have been
to exonerate the defendants.
In summary it can be stated that this judicial text officially confirms
a particular feature of the “gas vans” appearing in all witness accounts:
These vehicles had a hermetically sealed cargo box. This would have
been technically impossible, as I have pointed out in chapter 1.3.2. Already
this fact should cause reservations about the eyewitness accounts.
According to my knowledge no judicial authority has so far ordered an
experiment being made to verify whether such a “gassing operation”
would have been possible in the first place under conditions described
by the prosecution.
3.7.4.1.3. The “Explosion of Kulmhof”
This accident it mentioned in the first paragraph of the Just letter
(see chapter 2.2.4.) and referred to four times in the court verdict under
scrutiny. Neither document contains information about the cause of the
explosion, but the claimed date of this alleged event enables us to come
to revealing conclusions regarding the authenticity of this claim.