ГУЛаг Палестины
Шрифт:
basis that the antiquated equipment there constituted cruel
and unusual punishment, which it demonstrably did. The
Alabama produced letter to other wardens warned them that if
Leuchter tried to sell them equipment and they refused to buy,
he might wind up testifying against them. This libelous and
career threatening action might have brought great financial
penalty on him and the state of Alabama were not Leuchter by
this time a sufficient pariah who saw no hope of getting a fair
shake in court. The comments regarding Illinois describe only
an excuse given which has no basis in reality.
Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with
fraud in Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had
only a bachelor's degree in history, and was not
licensed to practice engineering in Massachusetts. In
June 1991, to avoid a trial in which he would surely
have been convicted, Leuchter admitted that, "I am
not and have never been registered as a professional
engineer", and that he had falsely represented himself
as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter
agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the
title 'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the
Leuchter report.
See comments above about this charge. Leuchter did not at
any time advertise himself as a "professional engineer" but
only as an "execution engineer." He never "falsely
represented himself as one" as Shallit states. It is not even
illegal for him to advertise and work as an execution engineer
unless one would seriously make the case that this involves
public safety. It is not illegal in Massachussets to work and
advertise as an engineer in a great many areas. Shallit's
comment is based on surmise which is in turn based on
ignorance of the terminologies and their meanings. The
difference between "professional engineer" and "engineer" is
not a trivial distinction. The title "Professional Engineer"
(Massachussets equivalent "licensed engineer" in other
locations "state certified engineer") is that used to legally
certify documents as correct, and the certifier must in many
states (but far from all) have certain qualifications (which vary)
to do this. Such a certification places all liability on the
certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of
blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal
importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects
involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise,
which is directed toward insuring rapid death!
Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that.
Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the
case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has
nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do
with work in Massachussets.
Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said,
"Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his
business in violation of Massachusetts law should
serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels."
A typical ADL smear tactic, Leuchter's credibility is in no way
discredited by the Massachussets/New York travesty of
justice. A biased court surrounded by several hundred
screaming demonstrators made a ludicrous interpretation of a
law and applied it against an unpopular defendant. None of
this has a thing to do with the scientific data contained in that
report, data later supported by several other sources whose
qualifications no one argues. Leanard Zakim's statement is
pure and hateful propaganda intended to silence those who
threaten his livelihood.
David Thomas, 2/28/97
CODOH can be reached at:
Box 439016/P-111
San Diego, CA, USA 92143
Comments from Fred Leuchter
Dear David Thomas,
Your remarks after the Irving to Shallit letter are not entirely
true.
The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly,
although it did privately, and forced both parties..i.e. The
Commonwealth and Leuchter into a settlement as a trial
would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an
agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the
things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or
change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's
dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual
promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the
Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he
would not break the law by saying things or doing things he
had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never
admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply
agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his
life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not
broken the law.
Please consider this and restate your description. I am sick of