From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:36:15 -0400
Archived: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 07:33:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Pseudonym Use & Hoax Charges [was: Linda


>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:52:25 -0300
>Subject: Re: Linda Cortile's Open Letter To Carol Rainey

<snip>

>I have no problem with anonymity, I've written about abductees
>in one of my books and protected their names as well. The
>problem I have in your case is we know the accused's name as
>Dave Jacobs while the person who is making the acusations
>remains annonymous.

>>From: Emma Woods <e.woods33.nul>
>>To: post.nul
>>Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 06:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
>>Subject: Re: Linda Cortile's Open Letter To Carol Rainey

<snip>
>>I am only anonymous in public, like many other experiencers.

<snip>

>>From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 13:47:18 -0300
>>Subject: Re: Linda Cortile's Open Letter To Carol Rainey

>>Additionally to the last, since when has it been proven that
>>the Cortile Case was a hoax? Is this just a proclamation or
>>is there some proof of a hoax other than Fake Emma just
>>saying so?

<snip>

<So there are no documents just a "he said she said" situation.
<It has not been definitively proved a hoax.

Hello, Don,

I'm sorry not to have responded earlier. I can't locate
your post, but I believe you asked about how definitive
forensic handwriting analysis is, in reference to the
documentary excerpt that I posted some time ago
about the Linda Cortile case.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Dali27?feature=mhum#p/a/u/1/4hQrcDbUpWM

The expert, Roger Rubin, consulted with me on the two sets of
documents, one stack with the known handwriting of Linda Cortile
and a hand- addressed manila envelope that was alleged to have
been sent to Hopkins by an independent third party on the
Brooklyn Bridge. Rubin has been accepted as an expert court
witness in many states, in over 80 cases in a 23 year career. He
has also written over 2200 opinions about medical insurance
claims and is a prominent member of three professional
organizations of forensic document examiners.

He states clearly in another segment not yet posted that
handwriting analysis is a highly trained skill (looking at
specific characteristics of the writing too detailed to go into
here)--that it is not, by itself, absolutely definitive
evidence.

Someone very experienced in the field--not a lay person with no
knowledge of the elements to be studied--can state that the two
samples are written by the same person with 1) a high degree of
certainty; 2) a reasonable degree of certainty; or 3)
inconclusive.

Rubin concluded that he had enough Cortile handwriting samples
to say with a high degree of certainty that she was also the
author of the addressed manila envelope, which supposedly came
with drawings from (another pseudonym!) "Janet Kimball."

Which then, of course, would lead us to question the actual
relationship of the witness on the bridge to Linda Cortile. But
before concluding that, it _would_ be good to have another such
analyst evaluate the same materials.

So that was one set of documents offered to help viewers begin
to draw their own conclusions about the case and about the way
that abduction research is currently practiced. A second set
have so far only been glimpsed--the drawings from Linda herself,
agent Richard, and witness Janet Kimball. A third set of
documents were in a later excerpt -- parts of the contract
between researcher and subject which clearly specifies the
degree of profit-sharing between them and which establishes a
fair amount of dishonesty and dissembling on the part of Cortile
about her lack of interest in profits from the book and/or
movie. Those documents also establish a possible motive for her
to report an esca- lating series of Hollywood-ready events. Not
proof, mind you, but possible motive.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Dali27?feature=mhum#p/a/u/0/3t9-ORR3Yhw

The third sort of documentation of the case are the videotaped
interactions between Hopkins and Cortile. I leave that to the
viewer to determine both credibility and degree of credulousness
that they choose to attribute to the subjects of the
documentary.

I don't think we could call this a "he said/she said" kind of
film. Cumulatively, the segments will offer substantial evidence
about the validity of the case.

Will it be definitive and absolutely convince the entire UFO
community one way or another? Nope! That I'm quite sure of.
People do tend to hold onto their articles of faith in this
field.

<snip>

>Don't you find it odd that Jacobs has not revealed your real
>name despite your public accusations? If he has, I'm not aware
>of it.

Actually, it's fairly apparent that Jacobs _has_ revealed Emma's
name to at least one individual, who posted under a pseudonym
(here we go again!) on the Paracast forum with veiled comments
that suggested he _could_ reveal her identity. The fact that
Jacobs has not himself done so is the sole honor left in his
research with this subject. Breaching the confidentiality of the
research subject's information would be a major ethical
violation on the researcher's part.

Hope I responded to the right question from you, however
belated!


Take care,

Carol Rainey
www.carolrainey.com



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.