AUSCHWITZ: PLAIN FACTS - Holocaust Handbooks

Germar Rudolf, Pressac and the German Public 25Recently, two technical expert reports have been commonly presented bythe defense as evidence for the correctness of the views of their clients,namely, the Leuchter Report 4 and the Rudolf expert report. 5 When these expertreports were presented in a criminal trial recently, the court refused to acceptthem as evidence, saying that they were not only not capable of resolving“doubts” in “competent scientific research,” and that they did not constitutenew evidence superior to previously submitted evidence. To quote the UpperLand Court of Celle: 6“The evidence submitted is mainly supported by researches of DiplomChemist Rudolph [7] and the so-called ‘Leuchter Report’ of the AmericanFred A. Leuchter. […] As to the discussion of the question in technical circles,we merely point out that the ‘Leuchter Report’ has been criticized,and that the French pharmacologist and toxicologist Pressac [8] as well asthe retired Social Counselor Wegner have produced expert reports thatcame to an opposite conclusion. Therefore, there are no facts to prove thatthe new research presented has led to a discussion in the technical communitydue to new doubts as to the consensus nor that there is any groundfor thinking the evidence presented is superior to evidence already athand.”Social Counselor Wegner, at the time of the quoted court decision a man ofnearly 90 years of age, had made a fool of himself with his article, 9 which didnot even approach the standards of a competent technical expert report, sincehe was not qualified in chemistry, toxicology, or other technical matters, andbecause he had never tried to put his writing in the form required by the rulesand customs of these disciplines. 10 He is therefore of no relevance in any discussionin technical circles. Pressac, however, was portrayed as the singletechnical specialist who argued against the revisionists – even though he hadnever addressed the arguments in my expert report. Nevertheless, for thecourt, Pressac’s works constitute a refutation of revisionist arguments, or areat least a match for them. Pressac is the last reed to which German justice cancling when they raise the objection “common knowledge” – for the purpose ofsuppression of evidence.4F.A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz,Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988, 195 pp.5R. Kammerer, A. Solms (eds.), Das Rudolf Gutachten, Cromwell Press, London 1993; Engl.:Germar Rudolf, The Rudolf Report, Theses & Dissertations Press, Chicago 2003.6Upper Distcit Court Celle, decision of Dec. 13, 1993, ref. 3 Ss 88/93, Monatszeitschrift fürDeutsches Recht, 46(6) (1994), p. 608.7Incorrect: the spelling is “Rudolf.”8Incorrect: Pressac is neither a pharmacologist nor a toxicologist, merely a pharmacist.9W. Wegner in: U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann (eds.), Die Schatten der Vergangenheit,Propyläen, Frankfurt/Main 1990, pp. 450ff.10 See my detailed refutation in G. Rudolf, Auschwitz-Lügen, Castle Hill Publishers, Hastings2005.