THE RUDOLF REPORT

8. EVALUATION OF CHEMICAL ANALYSESmaterials. Furthermore, these buildings are not so much in the spotlightof the museum activity as those in the main camp, and therefore ratherpermit hope of an absence of subsequent building alterations.Finally, samples were taken from a few inmate barracks to examineLeuchter’s argument that low cyanide traces could also result froma few fumigations for pest control. The numbering of the barracks correspondsto those found on the barracks today. 509 See also, in this regard,Fig. 12.8.3.3.1. Samples 1-4: Crematorium II, Morgue 1On the taking of samples 1 to 3, see Figure 26 (page 92). An extremelyhigh concentration of cyanide on the surface of the materialmust generally be expected. To investigate this, sample 1 contains,principally, concrete prongs from the ceiling/underside of the roof(caused by wooden planking), that is, the most exposed part of theconcrete, as well as material from the uppermost layer of concrete, 1 to2 cm thick, including a piece up to a depth of approximately 3 mm.Sample 2 contains concrete to a depth of 5 mm, taken from theplace at which the piece extending inward up to a depth of 3 mm wasobtained in sample 1.Separation between material from the topmost layer (Sample 1)and lower layers (Sample 2) was not entirely possible due to the extremehardness of the concrete.Sample 3 is a harder plaster, obviously rich in cement, extendingto the first row of bricks.Sample 4 originates from the plaster of the concrete beam in thechimney wing (rubbish incineration) of crematorium II. It is only interestingas a blind sample in addition to the others.The results lie in the same order of magnitude as Leuchter’s positivefindings from other alleged ‘gas chambers’, although Leuchter hadno positive results in samples from morgue 1 (‘gas chamber’) of crematoriumII. The difference between Samples 1 and 2 may indicatethat a depth profile is actually prevalent in the concrete. Table 20shows a list of control analyses. Sample 3 mentioned above with a lowpositive result of 6.7 mg/kg now has a value below the detectablethreshold (0.5 mg per kg). This confirms the statement made in chapter8.2. that values near the detectable threshold are not reproducible.509 J.-C. Pressac, op. cit. (note 67), p. 514, plan of Birkenau camp with barracks numbering.253