I believe Leuchter was an 'expert witness' for the defense counsel of a Holocaust denier. The defense included other Holocaust deniers, such as Irving (who was supposedly influenced by the subsequent report). Leuchter personally collected samples from the death camps, even though I believe it was illegal.
In right-wing, neo-Nazi and revisionist circles the report is apparently still popular and influential (anecdotally, I've seen it cited by people debating the accuracy of our historical consensus on the Holocaust).
Essentially, my first question is: Can we classify the report as a genuine attempt at historical inquiry which was ultimately compromised by the author's limited competencies and research methods? Or is the report a knowingly contrived and politically motivated piece of Holocaust revisionism?
Secondly: In refuting the report, does it suffice to deem Leuchter as under-qualified (BA in History, no further specialisation) or are there specific methodological failings that we can now point to in his work.
Many thanks for reading!
Edit: Spelling.
One big methodological flaw was how he collected the samples from the gas chambers for analyzing. The cyanide would have formed a thin layer on the surface of the walls, but he collected samples of the masonry that were thick and then tested the whole piece crushed up. Cyanide was still detected but he claimed that it didn't mean anything. I read an analogy that his method was like trying to analyze paint by testing the wood behind it. Another giant flaw is that he tested reconstructed gas chambers, as the Nazis tried to destroy the camp. I am sure there are other problems with his report but I don't have the knowledge to talk about them. I don't think that you can just discredit him because he doesn't have the right degree, it is very possible to do great work without one, but he went into the report with the conclusion that the holocaust didn't happen and found anything he could to support that.
Having to attack something as outlandish as that "report" on formal grounds strikes me as quite ridiculous.
Doing a technical analysis while there are literally hundreds of thousands or even millions of witness testimonials from both sides, victims and perpetrators, is a futile exercise, isn't it?