Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (69196)	9/11/2004 7:12:35 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

The authenticity of a signature on a copied document is irrelevant. That is why I led the post with my comment about "experts."

To: KyrosL who wrote (69196)	9/11/2004 7:44:21 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793964

The authenticity of a signature on a copied document is irrelevant. Glad you brought it up, Kyros. Look what Rather is relying on. L.A. Times: CBS Expert Only Verified One Document. September 11, 2004, 04:57:54 EDT The Los Angeles Times latimes.com has posted a fairly comprehensive roundup of the media coverage surrounding Memogate including a scoop: CBS's featured signature analyst Marcel Matley will only vouch for one of its purported Guard memos: "As another of the corroborating experts for its report, CBS and Rather presented an on-air interview with Marcel B. Matley, a San Francisco document examiner. Rather said Matley had corroborated the four Killian memos. "But in an interview with The Times, the analyst said he had only judged a May 4, 1972, memo -- in which Killian ordered Bush to take his physical -- to be authentic. "He said he did not form a judgment on the three other disputed memos because they only included Killian's initials and he did not have validated samples of the officer's initials to use for comparison. "A CBS official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that the network had two other document experts, who CBS did not identify, examine the documents, which were copies of the originals." "The experts studied the type font or style, spacing and other variables and deemed the memos legitimate, said the official." Unamed experts confirming a copy of a document from an unamed source. We're convinced. Meanwhile, another expert who isn't afraid to go on the record has come out against CBS, Howard Rile, former president of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners: "We shouldn't have to be be doing this over the Internet," Rile tells the Times. "This sounds like a case that could be resolved very quickly if you get the evidence and examine it; if you get the original." CBS has said that it does not have the original documents. ratherbiased.com

To: KyrosL who wrote (69196)	9/11/2004 7:49:31 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Ain't the Internet wonderful? CBS Star Witness - In his Own Words Wizbang Just 2 short years ago, CBS's Star witness, Marcel Matley wrote a book titled, Using and Cross-Examining Handwriting Experts." (pdf) In it, he denounces his own methodology he used for CBS: The Problem with Copies Do not passively accept a copy as the sole basis of a case. Every copy, intentionally or unintentionally, is in some way false to the original. In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. [heh -ed] From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible. Why didn't you tell Dan Rather that Mr. Matley? wizbangblog.com