SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: carranza2 who wrote (72324)9/21/2004 2:14:12 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793808
 
It takes about a nanosecond to determine that the documents are false.

It takes about that long to determine that they are likely false, but what is the standard of proof for forgery? An expert typically will declare something authentic or say simply that he cannot authenticate it. At what point do experts certify something like this a forgery? Would they not have to have the same level of proof as they would to declare authenticity, such as the original?

The apology is interesting to a lawyer... if he didn't knowingly use forgeries, he didn't need to use weasel language in the apology

Would the CBS lawyers not insist on weasel language regarding forgery if there is no proof of forgery? Alleged forgery or apparent forgery or likely forgery or some such? News organizations tend to be careful to say "alleged." I remember hearing them say "alleged murders" when they were talking about the beltway killings.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News