From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 14:54:26 -0300 Archived: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 07:20:18 -0400 Subject: Re: Pseudonym Use & Hoax Charges [was: >From: Carol Rainey <csrainey2.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:36:15 -0400 >Subject: Pseudonym Use & Hoax Charges [was: Linda Cortile's Open > Letter To Carol Rainey] >>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. But this is not new evidence. If memory serves Budd states this in the book witnessed? Or it was admitted back in the late 90s sometime. I knew about this and I'm sure most of those interested did too. I once was invited to do a documentary re the Shag Harbour Incident-one of a couple dozen at least. In this case though it was going to eat up a lot of my time. I wasn't retired then. It was an American production and I would have had to go to the states, blah blah, blah. For once I dug in my heels and said I want this and I want that. "Oh, we don't pay our witnesses." "But you don't turn down the profit and good salaries you make at my expense, do you? Without me or my co-author Chris Styles you don't have a documentary other than what you can steal from the book." That one never came off but there are no end of documentary film makers who make money off the testimony of the same witnesses who get villified whether they get paid or not. Your expert handwriting witness gets paid for his testimony in court. That doesn't lessen the impact of of his testimony in court. If Cortile got a lump of money for putting up with the crap that most witnesses have to put up with (in her case a heck of a lot more) more power to her. >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. Again, this is subjective, not documentation. >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. You would be better to leave the former sentence out of the argument. Making this statement suggests desperation. In other words "f you don't believe what I have told you then you are not to be convinced because you will believe regarless what evidence is presented." This makes some religous kind of association to the word 'believe'. I could say that you are putting your faith in a non-science. Handwriting expertize is in the same genre as psychiatric experts. They are not even soft science. I know the legal proffessions have leaned on this type of evidence for years but more exact forensic sciences (note the word sciences) have tended to throw out a lot of what was once considered evidence. The FBI perpetrated an outright lie that got people convicted using lead bullets (just the lead portion, not the copper, brass or chrome jackets) and the 'different' types of lead. What a surprise to find that the lead in the gun of whatever suspect the police were favoring matched the lead bullets found in the body of the murdered person. The fact is, everyone's lead bullets did. The FBI has since circulated statements to police organizations world wide advising them that comparing lead bullets has no validity in forensic science. But in any case. I looked at the document comparisons and frankly a couple of curls in documents filled with other non- comparible letters does not proof make. In two letters written by two different people with hundreds if not thousands of characters in each the odds are that a few will look the same. An infinite number of mokeys and ...typewriters.... ><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. Damned with faint praise, huh? > Breaching the confidentiality of the research subject's >information would be a major ethical violation on the >researcher's part. But he didn't; that was my point. >Hope I responded to the right question from you, however >belated! Yes, thanks, but I have to go and look at the other URLs you sent. I don't have much time at present. Don Ledger 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