THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTc. The tendency of porous wall material in moist undergroundrooms to accumulate and to bind hydrogen cyanide, physicallyas well as chemically, is hundreds of times higher than that ofsheet metal. 78d. As a matter of fact, the letter accompanying the samples sent tothe Cracow Institute actually mentions that a mortar sample allegedlytaken from a so-called gas chamber is enclosed as welland should also be tested for cyanide. However, for unknownreasons, the Cracow Institute did not mention this mortar samplein its report, perhaps because it did not show any positive result.3. It is unknown where those zinc-plated metal covers are today. It isfurthermore impossible to identify them, since the Cracow reportdoes not include a description or photo of them. Therefore, thisanalysis cannot be reproduced.4.4.1.2. The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz TrialSeveral expert reports were prepared during the Frankfurt Auschwitztrial, the best known being those of the Munich Institut für Zeitgeschichte(Institute for Contemporary History). 79 However, none ofthese reports was forensic in nature. They addressed legal, historical,or psychological topics. Throughout this mammoth trial, the court, theprosecution, 80 and the defense 81 never suggested that material traces ofthe alleged crime be secured and investigated. The prosecution had atits disposal numerous statements by eyewitnesses and confessions byperpetrators, and it considered this material entirely sufficient to estab-78798081For this, see chapter 6.7.H. Buchheim et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates, Walter, Freiburg 1964.Throughout his writings, Adalbert Rückerl, one of the most prominent German prosecutors in‘Holocaust cases’, dispenses with any mention of material evidence. Instead, he declaresdocumentary evidence the best and most important form of evidence, even in the absence ofmaterial evidence for the authenticity and correctness of the documents themselves (in J. Weber,P. Steinbach (eds.), Vergangenheitsbewältigung durch Strafverfahren?, Olzog, Munich1984, p. 77). Rückerl reports that it is practically impossible to find a suspect guilty solely ondocumentary evidence, so that, especially given the increasing time span separating allegedcrimes from trial, it is almost always necessary to fall back on eyewitness testimony, eventhough its unreliability is clear, particularly in trials of so-called ‘National Socialist violentcrimes’ (A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht, C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1984, p. 249;Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse, dtv,Munich 1978, p. 34; Rückerl, NS-Prozesse, C. F. Müller, Karlsruhe 1972, pp. 27, 29, 31).Such total naiveté, combined with legal incompetence, on behalf of the defense is best exemplifiedin Hans Laternser, Die andere Seite im Auschwitzprozeß 1963/65, Seewald, Stuttgart1966.44