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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp