Summary:
Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. is an Errol Morris film about a horrific subject, a man’s daily life who creates and repairs equipment to execute criminals. The mousy son of a prison worker, Fred Leuchter, is in high demand as a maker and fixer of execution equipment. Leuchter justifies his actions by portraying himself as a humanitarian seeking to avoid botched executions and labeling death by torture. In its final moments, the film turns bizarre and devolves into a failed rant about the neo-Nazi Holocaust denial movement. Leuchter’s transformation from a well-liked engineer to a scientific outcast raises concerns about the obligation of professionals to apply their knowledge for technical purposes. The thesis statement of this film is that the life and times of Leuchter serve as a warning story about the dangerous effects of science unconnected from ethics, as well as the importance of using intelligence effectively.
The film Mr. Death begins by following Leuchter’s journey to test an electric chair, in which he was involved in Holocaust denial and revisionism, “some years ago the state asked me to look at their electric chair. I was surprised by the condition of the equipment. I indicated to them what changes should be made to bring the equipment up to the point of doing a humane execution” (TED, 2:59). It looks into his private life, including his marriage to his wife, his interest in the Holocaust, and the controversy surrounding his participation in a Canadian court case. The book paints a complex portrait of a man who was both talented and flawed and became embroiled in controversies that ultimately destroyed his career. It also examines more general issues like the death penalty and the place of experts in society.
The film’s middle section explores Leuchter’s role in Holocaust denial. It details his contentious visit to Auschwitz, where he illegitimately took samples from the walls of the gas chambers to show that they were not used for mass executions. Morris speaks with Leuchter, who upholds his actions by saying he was only trying to get to the truth. The film Mr. Death also reveals his lack of knowledge of gas chamber design and his flawed investigational methodology, ultimately leading to his demise and loss of credibility as an expert witness in cases involving the death penalty. The film also looks at his relationships and personal life, such as his distressed marriage and his tense relationship with his mother, “he was having problems at home with his mother; she was not talking to him.” (TED, 28:55)
At the trial of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel, accused of disseminating false information about the Holocaust, Leuchter testifies in court at the movie’s end. He says, “I testified in Canada for two reasons; first, the trial was an issue of freedom of speech and belief” (TED, 1:09:09). In his testimony, he asserts that the gas chambers at Auschwitz and other concentration camps were inoperable for mass executions. Leuchter’s testimony, however, is thoroughly refuted, and he is exposed as a fraud. As a result, he is shunned by the engineering profession and becomes a pariah. As the film ends, Leuchter regrets his actions and reflects on his life and mistakes. The camera gradually fades to black as the final scene shows him sitting alone in his home, surrounded by his tools and opinions.
To conclude, the film explores the life and work of engineer Leuchter who gained notoriety for developing execution machinery and providing testimony in Holocaust denial cases. He was tasked with investigating the gas chambers at Auschwitz and other concentration camps and designing execution machinery for several US states. Through interviews with him, his family, colleagues, and decriers, the documentary explores the controversial nature of his work, including his affiliation with Holocaust denial and his flawed investigative methods at Auschwitz.
Response:
Leuchter is portrayed in the film Mr. Death as both a specialist in designing instruments of execution, such as gas chambers and electric chairs, and as someone seriously flawed in both his thinking and behavior. Leuchter is shown to be arrogant and obstinate because he thinks he is an authority in his field and acknowledges what is best for the execution process. Interestingly, Leuchter portrayed himself as someone who is conceited about fundamental scientific truths and has a warped sense of ethical behavior in the film Mr. Death, “you certainly can make it more comfortable you could put them in a contour chair like that they have in the dentist’s office that at least he’d be sitting up you could give them a television you could give music you could put some pictures in the wall” (TED, 19:07). Leuchter has also made the false claim that the Nazi concentration camps’ gas chambers were never used for mass killings. He denies the Holocaust, the actions that ultimately lead to his downfall because he is sued for making false statements and loses his credibility as an authority on execution machinery.
Leuchter participated in Ernst Zundel’s trial as an expert witness during his 1988 hearing in Toronto, Canada. He was asked to present evidence to refute claims that the Nazi regime murdered millions of Jews in gas chambers during the Holocaust. Leuchter claimed that he scientifically examined the purported Auschwitz and Majdanek gas chambers and determined they could not have been used for murderous acts. Zundel used his findings to support his denial of the Holocaust, “we made detailed scale drawings of the rooms with arrows showing a location that was removed the notebook videotape and the drawings were given to the court and became a part of the permanent evidence” (TED, 35:13). Historiologists widely dismissed Leuchter’s testimony, which was later found to be methodologically flawed. Nevertheless, Leuchter’s involvement in the trial was very divisive, and his connection to Holocaust denial has remained divisive ever since.
Leuchter’s involvement in Zundel’s trial raises critical ethical questions about using expert witnesses in court cases. Historians and subject matter authorities widely rejected Leuchter’s testimony, but he was still permitted to testify in a criminal trial. This raises questions about the duties that experts who testify in court and those who hire them have in terms of ethics, as it turned out that Leuchter needed more credentials as an engineer and held only a bachelor’s Degree in history (TED, 10:54). Furthermore, Leuchter’s bizarre explanation that anyone who went to college knew enough mathematics and science to be an engineer made a judge rule that Leuchter lacked expertise in the engineering field. Leuchter’s involvement also prompts questions about using expert testimony in contentious cases, like those involving the Holocaust, during which there is a chance of presenting false or deceptive evidence.
Following the trial, Leuchter attended Neo-Nazi conferences since they provided him with a safe space to express his views without fear of criticism or backlash. Furthermore, by engaging in these conferences and spreading his ideas, Leuchter could gain recognition from people who agreed with him. Participation in neo-Nazi gatherings allowed Leuchter to express his convictions and viewpoints away from the spotlight. Through the conference, Leuchter could discuss his theories without fear of public backlash or criticism. Leuchter also had the chance to expand his network of like-minded people who could help him develop and disseminate his ideas by attending neo-Nazi conferences. After the trial, Leuchter went to neo-Nazi gatherings to find a sympathetic audience, air his opinions, and expand his network. He used it to deal with the scrutiny and criticism from the general public and win the support of those who agreed with him.
Leuchter’s decision to attend neo-Nazi conferences following the trial has moral and ethical ramifications because it demonstrates that he is adopting a new identity as a supporter of the movement, which could be interpreted as disrespect for Holocaust victims and legitimization of the neo-Nazi cause. Leuchter attended the conferences to understand better the complex issues surrounding the Holocaust, which could be interpreted as an attempt to learn from his mistakes. As a result, Leuchter’s attendance at conferences has moral implications.
The film Mr. Death does not cover the entirety of Leuchter’s professional career and its implications. This is one of Leuchter’s main criticisms. The film focuses on Leuchter’s involvement in Holocaust denial, while his work as an activist and engineer is overlooked. The film also fails to thoroughly examine Leuchter’s role in Holocaust denial and the broader implications of his actions. To adequately address the issues raised by Mr. Death, the film must examine Leuchter’s entire career, including his additional endeavors as an activist and engineer. The film Mr. Death must also thoroughly analyze the narrower and broader ramifications of Leuchter’s participation in Holocaust denial (TED, 27:45). This entails looking into how his actions have been utilized to advance the objectives of Holocaust denialists, incite hatred and bigotry, and challenge the historical integrity of the Holocaust.
In the film Mr. Death, Leuchter makes several outlandish claims and arguments. He relies extensively on his erroneous thinking and scant research to support his claims. For instance, he asserts that the Auschwitz gas chambers’ effectiveness could not have been as great as claimed because of insufficient ventilation; however, he offers no complex data to support this claim (TED, 26:07). In addition, he asserts (again without providing any proof) that the cyanide in the chamber walls is not proof of mass murder. Hence, in the film Mr. Death, Leuchter’s claims are generally unpersuasive and illogical. He places a high value on his assumptions and beliefs, which are not supported by reliable data or analysis. As a result, determining the authenticity of his claims is difficult.
Leuchter’s arguments and observations in the film Mr. Death also bring up some crucial issues that need to be addressed, including Leuchter’s credentials and area of expertise in execution technology. Despite having a successful career in the field, he didn’t have a formal education or background in forensic science. This casts doubt on his findings and inferences. Furthermore, the film calls into question Leuchter’s analysis of the Auschwitz-Birkenau evidence. Leuchter based his conclusions on a shred of inadequate evidence, and whether his procedures followed standard forensic science procedures is unclear (TED, 36:17). In addition, the film raises questions about Leuchter’s involvement in the case’s ethical implications. Some have claimed his work was linked to Holocaust denial because a contentious defense team employed him. Finally, the film also raises issues regarding Leuchter’s legacy. Holocaust denialists have used his findings to advance their arguments, although they have been widely disputed and disproven.
Some of the crucial lessons in the film Mr. Death involve considering the effects of an individual’s actions before taking any deed. Despite being a highly esteemed execution technician, Leuchter’s decision to investigate the Holocaust destroyed his career. Also, individuals should always remain aware of the influence of public opinion. Leuchter’s report was widely believed to be accurate despite evidence to the contrary, which ruined his reputation. Additionally, one should be equipped to handle unpredictability and criticism. Holocaust survivors and historians criticized Leuchter; his conclusions were ultimately false.
Finally, since doing so would force him to face any harm he had caused or was still causing, Leuchter was unwilling to consider the possibility that he had made a mistake. Leuchter’s sense of self and purpose would be in danger if he entertained the idea that he might be mistaken. To conclude, the film Mr. Death examines the life of Leuchter, a self-described engineer who gained notoriety by contributing to the creation of the execution apparatus used in several US states. It challenges the idea that technology and science are neutral by nature and raises issues about engineering and science ethics and the obligations that come with expertise. Additionally, it urges viewers to evaluate their values and beliefs critically and to resist the urge to put morality above technical competence because of his divisive opinions on the Holocaust and his willingness to support Holocaust deniers.
Works Cited
TED. (2000, February, 4). Mr. Death The Rise and Fall of Fred A Leuchter Jr: Errol Morris at TEDxPoland. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONuids2-tqg
TED. (2021, January, 22). The assault on Holocaust memory and history: Holocaust denial and the Leuchter Report : Mark Hobbs at TEDxEngland. You Tube.
https:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dB4qw_CHdc
TED. (2011, April, 23). Mr. Death, making of Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, J: Michael Kasino at TEDxAmerica.
You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMvD0l3Gz3s
write