<font size=4>Who is CBS News' 4th original expert, "James J. Pierce"?
<font size=3>Bill Dyer - Beldar
<font size=4>
CBS News' latest public statement (hat-tip to my commenter See-Dubya) claims that
<font color=blue>
[f]our independent individuals with expertise in the authentication of documents were consulted prior to the broadcast of the story regarding the documents 60 MINUTES Wednesday obtained [sic]: Marcel B. Matley, James J. Pierce, Emily Will and Linda James.
<font color=black>
CBS News says that <font color=blue>"[t]wo of the examiners, Mssrs. [sic] Matley and Pierce, attested and continue to attest to their belief in the documents' authenticity."<font color=black>
In my quick googling of <font color=blue>"James J. Pierce" and "James Pierce,"<font color=black> I can't find any likely hits. Does anyone have any clues as to who this fellow might be? My guess is he's another handwriting guy, from this part of the statement: <font color=blue>"Pierce believes that the documents in question are authentic as best he can determine, given that they are copies and not originals. (attachment 2)"<font color=black>
The statement says that Ms. Will and Ms. James <font color=blue>"appeared on a competing network yesterday, where they misrepresented their conversations and communication with CBS News."<font color=black> I expect we'll hear their considered reactions to being called liars shortly.
This CBS News statement also references four <font color=blue>"attachments"<font color=black> that aren't included in the .pdf file. Does anyone have any clues to what these are or where they can be found?
One last example from this statement of how ... umm, confused is the most charitable term ... CBS is about what it actually did, and when:
<font color=blue>
The 60 MINUTES Wednesday broadcast reported that it obtained <font size=5>six documents<font size=4> from the personal files of Lt. Col. Killian, four of which were used in the broadcast.<font color=black>
No, guys, you didn't disclose in the original broadcast that you had two documents that you were holding back. Nor have you explained yet why you failed to disclose that.
AllahPundit has a good post (read the updates too) with informed speculation about this.
Here's more fisking of this statement from Ernest Miller (hat-tip InstaPundit).
Update (Wed Sep 15 @ 8:53pm): Via Politicalities, links to the four attachments (Matley, Pierce, Glennon, and Katz), which include an address for Mr. Pierce. (I want a CV!)
Pierce speaks first to signatures, which he says are <font color=blue>"consistent and in basic agreement."<font color=black> Ummm, excuse me, that's not quite an affirmative statement that they're genuine and authentic. In fact, that's meaningless. Pierce then speaks to typefaces (weakly) — yeah, this guy is a polished professional alrightee:
<font color=blue>
In regard to the balance of the typed-written [sic] photocopied questioned documents, the same typed-face [sic] designs are strongly similar to corresponding samples that indicate the same typed-face [sic] existed prior to the date in question on the photocopied documents.<font color=red>
Incredibly, Pierce's half-page opinion is signed
yesterday! And it looks like Mr. Pierce needs some help
with his own typeding — Ms. Knox might be available!
<font color=black>
Matley's opinion is also a single page, <font color=red>also dated yesterday<font color=black>. I can't make sense of it — something about Col. Killian being under stress?
Dan Rather — I'll let you cut off my left pinkie with an axe on national television if you'll give me each of these guys' compete files, a fifteen-minute head start, and then let me cross-examine either of these guys under oath for fifteen minutes each. I'll bring the axe, the court reporter/videographer, and my pajamas. |
