CBS's affiliate report is already in tatters. By tomorrow morning.................
Who is CBS News' 4th original expert, "James J. Pierce"?
Bill Dyer - Beldar
CBS News' latest public statement (hat-tip to my commenter See-Dubya) claims that
[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.
CBS News says that "[t]wo of the examiners, Mssrs. [sic] Matley and Pierce, attested and continue to attest to their belief in the documents' authenticity."
In my quick googling of "James J. Pierce" and "James Pierce," 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: "Pierce believes that the documents in question are authentic as best he can determine, given that they are copies and not originals. (attachment 2)"
The statement says that Ms. Will and Ms. James "appeared on a competing network yesterday, where they misrepresented their conversations and communication with CBS News." I expect we'll hear their considered reactions to being called liars shortly.
This CBS News statement also references four "attachments" 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:
The 60 MINUTES Wednesday broadcast reported that it obtained six documents from the personal files of Lt. Col. Killian, four of which were used in the broadcast.
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 "consistent and in basic agreement." 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:
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.
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!
Matley's opinion is also a single page, also dated yesterday. 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. |
