THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTlaboratory had analyzed the masonry samples from the alleged ‘gaschambers’ taken by Leuchter in Auschwitz for their cyanide content.During the trial against Ernst Zündel in Toronto that same year, forwhich the Leuchter report had been produced, Prof. Dr. Roth himselfwas interrogated as an expert witness. Ten years later, Errol Morrisinterviewed Roth about this event. During this interview, Prof. Rothdid all he possibly could to distance himself from the possible consequencesof the analyses performed by his company. His interviewgained importance only due to the fact that the Dutch architectural HistorianProf. Robert van Pelt quoted Roth in his 1999 expert report preparedfor the Irving trial. In it, van Pelt wrote about Roth’s statementsin Morris’ movie: 516“Roth explained that cyanide will react on the surface of brick orplaster, penetrating the material not more than 10 microns, or 0.01 mm,or one tenth the thickness of a human hair […]. In other words, if onewants to analyze the cyanide concentration in a brick sample, one shouldtake a representative sample of the surface, 10 microns thick, and nomore.”It can be shown that Prof. Dr. James Roth is wrong for the followingreasons:1. It is a fact that the walls of the disinfestation chambers in Auschwitz,Birkenau, Stutthof, and Majdanek are saturated with cyanidecompounds, and this not only superficially, but into the depth ofthe masonry, as I have proved by taking samples from differentdepths of the wall, compare in this regard especially my samplesno. 11, 13, 17, 19b, and 23 in Table 19. They prove that hydrogencyanide can rather easily reach deep layers of plaster and mortar.But even the other samples taken from the surface prove that Prof.Roth’s allegation is wrong: Provided that most of the cyanide detectabletoday is present in the form of iron cyanide (Iron Blue andother cyanoferrates), as Prof. Roth assumes himself, his thesiswould mean that 10% to 75% of the iron content of these samplesare located in the upper 10 micrometer of my samples (0.010 mm),i.e., they are located in less then 1% of the entire sample mass, andthe rest of the sample would have been massively deprived of iron.How this migration of a major portion of iron to a thin surfacelayer would have happened is inexplicable to me.516 Pelt Report, op. cit. (note 66), p. 307.274