Bill Dyer at Beldar blog.
<font size=4>Tonight's CBS Evening News broadcast's only arguable <font color=blue>"expert,"<font color=black> Marcel Matley, can only opine as to handwriting and signatures
The only expert identified or quoted on Dan Rather's just-concluded "CBS Evening News" broadcast, Marcel Matley, almost certainly lacks the qualifications to address the vast majority of issues raised by those who've questioned the authenticity of the documents produced by CBS News.
I've just spent twenty minutes or so googling Mr. Matley, following each link produced by a search on his name. The closest I found to a resume was this very brief page, which reads:<font color=blue>
<font size=3>
Marcel Matley studied handwriting analysis with Rose Toomey and was certified by the Paul de Ste. Colombe Center. In 1985 he became a full time professional document examiner and has other interests in medical and psychological research, paleography, education, Western formal penmanship and Oriental calligraphy. He is the author of several published monographs and articles, taught private classes and seminars, and presented at conferences. The American Handwriting Analysts Foundation’s library, as well as a collection of more than 4,000 forensics and handwriting articles, is located in his home in San Francisco where it is available for reference by appointment. <font color=black>
<font size=4>
A couple of other pages suggest that Mr. Matley is available as an expert witness for hire on handwriting analysis — nothing wrong with that necessarily. He apparently has spoken and/or written at various seminars for lawyers and other experts, including at least one hosted by the National Association of Document Examiners, but he is not listed by name on that organizations (perhaps non-exhaustive) page of members; nor have I seen any reference to him claiming entitlement to that association's <font color=green>"designation of Certified Document Examiner, or CDE."<font color=black> Mr. Matley has been quoted in some press accounts of medium-to-high profile disputes — always in the context of handwriting analysis. He's listed as a <font color=blue>"forensic document examiner"<font color=black> on the semi-functional website of something called the American Handwriting Analysis Foundation, and also as its librarian; it may be that he has some sort of certification from that organization, which avers that its purpose is to <font color=green>"provide information and services to its members with the goal of enriching their effectiveness as handwriting analysts and to educate the public about the handwriting sciences."<font color=red>
I can find no references on the internet which would
suggest that Mr. Matley has any qualifications whatsoever
to give expert opinions on computer or typewriter fonts or
typefaces, or on the authenticity of documents in general,
as distinct from handwriting or perhaps signatures.
<font color=black>
Were I, as a trial lawyer, considering hiring him as an expert witness, or were I preparing to cross-examine him as an expert hired by my opposing counsel, I'd need — and insist upon, and be able to get through court compulsion if need be — far more information about his background and qualifications, even with respect to handwriting or signature analysis.
But for present purposes, I'll stipulate that Mr. Matley is adequately qualified to talk about signatures. And indeed, it would be appropriate for CBS to engage someone with that expertise, and some of the questions raised about the CBS documents have related to the variations of the signatures (which, at least to my inexpert eye, don't look all that similar to one another). So I'm not saying that he's altogether the wrong kind of expert, or that everything he's told CBS or said in tonight's broadcast is entirely irrelevant.
<font color=red>
But Marcel Matley simply can't be the guy to authenticate,
or defend the authenticity of, the computer- or typewriter-
generated portions of the CBS documents. Nor did anything
he said in tonight's "CBS Evening News" broadcast suggest
that he even claims to have that expertise, much less that
he's exercised it in this instance. Unless he has a vast
body of unrevealed credentials, in fact, I'm very
confident that I could persuade any state or federal court
to completely exclude Mr. Matley's testimony on any
subject other than handwriting or signatures.
<font color=black>
(Even what Mr. Matley had to say about signatures was superficial and far from unequivocal, but I'll refrain from arguing that issue at present.)
The CBS broadcast also included statements from Robert Strong, identified as <font color=blue>"an administrative officer for the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam Years."<font color=black> Dan Rather insists that Strong <font color=blue>"knew Jerry Killian, the man credited with writing the documents ... and paper work ... like these documents ... was his specialty."<font color=black> Well, yes, Dan, in that sense, probably at least 100 million Americans have a specialty in <font color=blue>"paper work."<font color=black> I'm not going to bother rebutting the silly suggestion that Mr. Strong has been shown to have any particular technical or scientific expertise to opine on the legitimacy of these documents. At best, I'd characterize Mr. Strong as a <font color=green>"soft witness"<font color=black> who could give contextual testimony on the likelihood, in general, that Col. Killian might have created or maintained memoranda of this sort — like other TANG personnel who may have served with Col. Killian, or his son or widow.
Author and TV news correspondent Jim Moore, identified as having <font color=blue>"written two books critical of President Bush and his service in the Guard"<font color=black> — presumably Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential being one of them — lacks even the marginal bona fides to speak to the legitimacy of the challenged documents that Mr. Strong might have as a <font color=green>"soft witness"<font color=black> who knew Col. Killian. Mr. Moore does, however, look great in a cowboy hat.
If Mr. Strong or Mr. Moore were among those whom CBS was counting upon among its <font color=blue>"independent experts,"<font color=black> they're fools, or they think we are.
Update (Fri Sep 10 @ 8:20pm): The fine lawyer-bloggers at Power Line also have a take on CBS' disclosed experts so far that's far more succinct than my own, but generally consistent.<font size=3>
beldar.blogs.com |
