|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2006 19:55:10 GMT -5
Apparently some people are suffering from a bout of "forgetfulness" and like to Script an argument to counter when it doesn't and never existed in the first place. Additionally, we see an utter lack knowledge which is gained by simply reading material which obviously wasn't read as evidenced by the incorrect over-statements and down right incorrect ones attributed to people who never made them. Its very hard to debate with someone so afflicted, therefore, unless I am asked directly by a Poster on this board this is the very last time I waste my efforts on irrelevant posts coming from the "truth" board venue..... I have never in my life seen anyone say or make this claim above. It's an invention made up by someone looking for attention. Interesting. Is that really what his report says? Absolutely not! This is a false statement which proves you must be very careful in accepting anything this guy says. But before I prove it, let me add more of his nonsense to embarrass him further.... And one more just so there's no misunderstanding... Reality check and magical - two "buzz-words" that will surely come back to haunt him. Let's take a look: Digitized scans delivered to Dr. Baier despite being described by him as excellent, he still says some graphic features could not be analyzed because they weren't the originals. Hence, deficiencies of findings arose and therefore conclusions drawn from these findings must be treated with reserve. And that routinely physical-technical methods could not be performed. (p1). *I wonder what Script would have said if he were sent xerox copies of xerox copies and a copy of Haring's book instead of these excellent digitized copies? ;D Today's writing Experts who mainly deal with younger and alive writers do not know writing behavior in those days of all details (p2). *Hi Script. At least it must be stated according to these unsatisfying circumstances conclusions can be reached only with a reduced degree of probability (p2). *Did Script miss this part? Dr. Baier concludes the Nursery note was written with the "unfamiliar hand." (p4) *How did Dr. Baier feel about the requested writings? In the ransom letters is one mirror-inverted capital "N" (see figure 23) that can be found int he requested material (sse figure 24), but as we do not know, how the request of writings was performed (maybe Hauptmann was instructed to write capital "N" in such a manner), it cannot be assessed definitely (p6). *Ahem. Conclusion - Looking at all these findings no definite and unambiguous conclusion can be drawn (p7).
Aforementioned material critique demands restrained appraisal of results. (p7)
Hence it can be assumed that Bruno Richard Hauptmann wrote probably the ransom notes (p7). *What exactly is Dr. Baier's levels of criteria? 1. Near Certain probability 2. Very Highly Probable 3. Highly Probable 4. Probable 5. Undecidable (p4) *So we see Script embellishes and exaggerates Dr. Baier's findings by attempting to upgrade his conclusions first by claiming it was "high probability" or #3, then claiming it was "strong(ly) probability" or #2. Let's compare Dr. Baier's level of criteria to the SWGDOC guidelines used by many Experts: 1. Identification 2. Highly Probable 3. Probably 4. Indications 5. No Conclusion
*I think Script needs to dig a hole and hide his head in the sand. What can we trust coming from him I wonder? *Now compare to: Hey - he took the gloves off. It certainly wasn't the smart thing to do was it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 20, 2006 20:04:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gismo on Jun 20, 2006 22:24:44 GMT -5
Excellent rebuttal, Michael.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 21, 2006 7:39:25 GMT -5
I would like to echo Gismo's applause but unfortunately I can only find sadness in the fact that so many highly intelligent people find themselves wasting time and spinning wheels over what I see as pointless endeavors to selectively present or interpret information in a mis-guided effort to prove a pre-determined position. That this seems to be the norm in this case it is no wonder why we don't get very far. It is even sadder that it takes more wasted time for needless and time consuming rebuttals. That is especially true in this instance when Dr Baier's report clearly states the probability and the problems with identifying Hauptmann as the note writer. I have seen the same selective posting on countless other topics as exemplified by the recent Samuelsohn story. Why is an agenda necessary? We have a great mystery on our hands which has not been completely solved. Who cares if Hauptmann is guilty or not and why? All that should matter is that the mystery is pursued and that it is solved. I wonder what causes posters and authors to fanatically pursue one result at the cost of objectivity and the disregard for the integrity of evidence and findings. I would love to state that I have the answer regarding the ladder, but I have to be honest and say it is only a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 21, 2006 8:03:34 GMT -5
I agree with most of what you say here Kevin, however I don't think the Samuelsohn debate is a good example. What I see there are various opinions and positions which were trying to be worked out by and through the debate. That is healthy despite the differences and disagreements.
What isn't healthy is feigning ignorance, selective amnesia, and downright misrepresentation of the facts and/or complete fiction portrayed as fact in order to try and "win" a point or position. And then there's always the "I don't need to read that I already know" attitude.
I'd rather be wrong.
That's what I like about this board. If I posted that nonsense concerning what Dr. Baier's reports supposedly said you had better believe everyone here would have called me on it. Over there Script gets congratulated and thanked.
It's twisted - I am thankful for our diversity, intelligence, integrity, and most of all - common sense.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 21, 2006 14:16:50 GMT -5
I was primarily referring to posts I read on other boards.
|
|
|
Post by mjrichmond on Jun 21, 2006 16:32:36 GMT -5
<<< Who cares if Hauptmann is guilty or not and why?>>> I care. In all the years I have studied this case the question of Hauptmann's guilty has been my primary focus. Why do I care? Because where history has recorded an injustice it should be exposed as such. Because if a man was electrocuted for a crime he did not commit, it should be acknowledged. <<<pointless endeavors to selectively present or interpret information in a mis-guided effort to prove a pre-determined position.>>> With all due respect, some positions are not pre-determined. Some are determined after considerable research, thought and contemplation. (As I am sure yours are, are they not?) While I certainly do not agree with the the misrepresentation of evidence or stating half-truths or opinion as "fact" (something I have seen on many other boards), you must honestly admit we are all somewhat "selective" in what we say to support what we believe. That is why this board allows for responses and debate. I have studied this case for over thirty years. I have things that I believe true about this case. To defend them does not mean I have an agenda or am trying to prove a "pre-determined position". It does not mean I will not consider other points of view or other evidence. I think this holds true for most of us. (Those for whom it does not hold true shall remain nameless. ) <<<We have a great mystery on our hands which has not been completely solved.>>> Do you really think the mystery of who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby will ever be definitively solved to everyone's satisfaction? Mjr
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 21, 2006 17:20:24 GMT -5
I take it you care in terms of whether justice was served or not. That would require an objective study of the case and it's evidence and that is what I was getting at.
Of course. I would even go further and say that as humans we are all afflicted with prejudice of one kind or another. But the question is can we try to see beyond that? I have seen the closed debate forums and honestly just don't see the point. This board has some pretty good debaters, you being one of them, and ideas are constantly being "hashed out". If a theory has merit it can survive. The other thing is that I have been in some intense debates with Michael and at the same time he is helping me out with information which I might use to his disadvantage. That speaks volumes about integrity
To be honest I don't think that is possible. But you never know, maybe I will be satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 from Norway on Jun 21, 2006 17:42:50 GMT -5
Kevin-if AU is down under then Tromso is up-top? Im always astounded that you assume mthat you figure that you can psycho-anal-eyes others into some little box or fixed position or outcome. Who do you thimk ur? Dr. Dud-ley Shoenfeld "profiller/ I could fire the same assalt at you? But it would waste space any but I might add you dont appear more open minded than the rest od us amareur sleuths?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Jun 21, 2006 19:08:51 GMT -5
Rick, for some reason you seem to think I was referring to you. Why is that? I purposely left out mention of hoaxsters.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2006 18:54:23 GMT -5
I know what I said but for amusement purposes I can't help myself.... Warning: If you have a weak stomach or small children at home you may want to turn off the computer. Let me get this straight. If you want someone's official position on their handwriting analysis you ignore their official report, rather, you watch a snippet from a show which is geared to "re-prove" the official verdict. Is this guy for real? In what context was this snippet made? On the other hand we certainly do know in what context the official report was written - don't we? How much more clear can Dr. Baier's report be? Its crystal and Script's post was disproven based upon it. His post was misleading because who in their right mind would believe he was referring to a TV show clip instead of his Official report? And yes, by anyone's definition it was a reckless post making that silly assertion based upon that "sound byte" clip and ignoring the report. The end. I leave the name calling to the guy with egg on his face.... I have a right to my opinion based upon the posts I have read coming from "Script" and it is they are worthless. Absolutely worthless. No one concludes someone wrote the notes based upon pictures in Haring's book and xerox copies of xerox copies of pictures. Simply review Dr. Baier's fine report and see for yourself - knowing he had high resolution scans and not xerox copies of xerox copies or pictures in Haring's book. I find it both reckless and negligent for anyone to conclude anyone wrote those notes under those circumstances. On my other board, 5260 (AKA Script) told me he hadn't examined the originals, and the xerox's and pictures in Haring's books were all he needed. And I wasn't the only witness to it..... Now he attempts by his most recent posts to somehow dilute what he has said in order to sound more reasonable. Whatever..... Anyway, he has twice called me a "liar" so he had better be very careful who he calls a "liar" because I keep proof of everything and I too know a Lawyer or two myself, I mean - who doesn't? You live by the sword you die by the sword. Don't take the gloves off and now appeal for sympathy because it doesn't appear to have been the smart thing to do. Some people just can't admit when they're wrong. Please, for anyone looking to threaten anyone else in the future. Slander is oral and libel is written. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibelSo in order to get the full effect of the threat you may want to actually get the term correct. Now to answer his question I believe his very own posts have proven to be his own worst enemy. Now Script - I order you to stop writing posts addressed to me and to stay off of this venue. If you can't handle the heat stay out of the kitchen.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 23, 2006 19:23:12 GMT -5
Anyone who resorts to "threats" gets the "hook" and Script will be the very first I have ever booted. I am looking for his IP address so anyone who may know it please give it to me so that I can ban him from the board.
Thanks.
This reminds of the time I was in 1st grade... A kid tried to cut in front of me and I told him not to.... He took a swing and missed - then I counter-punched and landed it on his nose. He then ran to the teacher crying that I hit him.
To this day I will never understand the logic behind this action - even from a 1st-grader.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 24, 2006 8:36:12 GMT -5
Yes I have been getting those posts emailed to me and I have read the most recent one there....
The most recent Poster on the "truth" bored either didn't read the exchange or is pretending to be stupid (I hope).
If it ever comes to those here "high-fiving" me and/or congratulating me after it was just shown that I was completely wrong - then we'll close the board down. We're here to debate in good faith and morphing into one of the Stepford Wives isn't a representation of that at all.
Either by act or omission Script's post was wrong. It was proven to be very incorrect...simply read above. Now they resort to saying I think I am related to Hauptmann. Get that? Anyone who has been reading my posts get that impression?
Its a tactic to dissuade people from reading our posts because they know we are honing in on the facts with our free-style and/or good faith debates.
Simply read the posts above and draw your own conclusions. If anyone thinks I am wrong because I should have ignored Dr. Baier's Official Report like Script obviously did, then you are free to say so here.
|
|
|
Post by gismo on Jun 25, 2006 9:30:39 GMT -5
My question to Script would be this....what has he contributed to the study of the Lindbergh Case with his "analysis" of the handwriting? Since he only used photocopies and didn't access the originals (which are apparently completely and freely available to him), he has given himself LESS access to the writing than Osborn and the others had. So, he could never do anything that they couldn't do because he didn't have access to the originals. He couldn't do high powered microscopic examinations, for example. He couldn't do infrared or ultraviolet tests. He couldn't check the pen pressure, etc. In other words, he couldn't go beyond looking at the appearance of the writing to the naked eye. Even high resolution scans are better than black and white photocopies out of a book! For all of his talk, etc he has contributed absolutely nothing new to the case. All he's done is regurgitate what was written by the real experts 70 years ago. Even Kelvin has contributed new material because he did a hands-on analysis. But not Script. He's supposed to be an expert, too. So, why hasn't this "expert" conducted a NEW study of the writing?
|
|
Joe
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,653
|
Post by Joe on Jun 25, 2006 18:36:06 GMT -5
Is there anything inconclusive in a high quality photocopy of the newspaper print of Hauptmann's autobiography written to his lawyer, James Fawcett, when compared to copies of the ransom notes? I hear the concern over the importance of evaluating the actual documents, but in this case much of that argument is moot through common sense.
There is no mistaking the uncrossed "t's," undotted "i's," open-looped "o's," oversized, awkward "k," other basic letter formation similarities, backwards "N," missing "e" in "Befor," etc., features found in the ransom notes, and which are clearly legible and totally unaffected by the fact this is not an original document.
Hauptmann just let his guard down here and I wouldn't be surprised if it's reasonably demonstrated one day, this was a precursor to a pending insanity plea and admission of involvement.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jun 25, 2006 19:48:44 GMT -5
You're entitled to both your opinion and/or personal observations here Joe - that's not the issue. Read Dr. Baier's report and see what he is saying about the high resolution scans he was given. Digitized scans delivered to Dr. Baier despite being described by him as excellent, he still says some graphic features could not be analyzed because they weren't the originals. Hence, deficiencies of findings arose and therefore conclusions drawn from these findings must be treated with reserve. And that routinely physical-technical methods could not be performed. (p1).(Edited 6-26: Should not have been italicized because it is not a quote-see original post above) 5260 made his conclusion by something, or so he said, far less reliable. If its "moot," as you seem so confident in saying, then why is Dr. Baier saying it in his Official Report? If it were that simple there would be no need for such things as "Experts" in the Handwriting fields. Today's writing Experts who mainly deal with younger and alive writers do not know writing behavior in those days of all details (p2). He's not talking about regular people here but his peers (other QDE). That's a very important observation he is making here that I do not believe we are qualified to "blow off." Every Expert, both then and now, say his "k" was different. Do you now disagree? These other traits have been found in other handwriting speicimens over the course of the investigation. The backwards "N" actually helps Hauptmann if you ask me. Look at the odds if you factor the times you can find them in his normal standards. Again, I am 50/50. I see some similarities and differences. I have issue with Hauptmann's, if he wrote them, uncanny ability to remember his disguise from note to note day to day - week to week...when Osborn said a person wouldn't be able to remember minutes apart. Then we're expected to believe Osborn was right during the bogus "requests." Both cannot be true. I also have a major problem with spelling, sentence structure, and context. This is simply guess-work on your part Joe. I disagree that Fawcett would have ever done this nor do I have any doubt in my mind that Hauptmann wouldn't have allowed it. The bottom line to this thread is that Script was reckless. He let the insults fly based upon an assertion concerning something that was untrue. Then he tried to support it by ignoring the Official Report and supposedly relying on a "sound byte" clip which differs with the report. It was both negligent and reckless - at the very least. Did he really think we didn't read the report? It shouldn't matter what you personally think about the handwriting..... Gismo's post hit the head of yet another nail....
|
|
|
Post by gismo on Jun 25, 2006 19:51:41 GMT -5
I'm sorry, I missed the spot in my post where I said Hauptmann didn't write the notes. Or where I said that he did. In fact, I missed the spot in the posts above where anyone said Hauptmann did NOT write the notes. Granted, there's specuation on the part of some, but no one has come right out and said that. (Unless, like I said, I missed the spot).
As for the "high quality photocopy of the newspaper print of Hauptmann's autobiography..." a couple of questions: 1) was the photocopy made from the actual newspaper itself or is it a copy made from microfilm? 2) what system was used to print the letter in the newspaper to begin with? In other words, what was the quality of the original?
Granted, there are times when only a copy is available. But why, WHY would you ONLY use photocopies of black and white photos out of a 70 year old book and not originals when the originals are available? And why would you say in your defense that you don't even NEED to use those originals???
My problem with "Script" is that he, unlike Kelvin and his wood report, has contributed absolutely NOTHING NEW to the Lindbergh case and has, in fact, done LESS THAN what was done 70 odd years ago yet he preaches to everyone what his "findings" are.
It's funny that someone who has put (I assume) a lot of time and effort into ORIGINAL wood analysis and writes a report has been more humble and professional in the handling of his work, results and criticism than someone who snipped pictures from a book and a photocopier and did no original work who comes across in his posts as someone throwing a snit when people critize him!
Hmmm...I wonder why he wasn't chosen to provide a report for Court TV. I guess they wanted something more exciting than watching someone cut out pictures from a book.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Jul 19, 2006 17:13:23 GMT -5
I was once again e-mailed some posts from the "Truth" Board (see link) and while I have promised to ignore them in the past I think its kind of hard to when people are asking me questions about them. Therefore, for the sake of keeping the facts straight and avoiding re-writing the same thing over and over in replies via the email - its important to make comment here.
I have in the past been very critical of "Script(ed)" and rightfully so. After all, he has claimed to be an Expert yet proclaimed a conclusion that Hauptmann had written the ransom notes based on comparison with the pictures in Haring's book.
That's a very outrages proclamation when one considers even the trio of Experts CourtTV utilized by providing digital high resolution scans all but refused to conclude this AND threw in, in essence, disclaimers based upon the fact that examination of the original notes may reveal something the high res scans didn't.
Next I observed "Script(ed)" drawing comparisons based upon Hauptmann's "autobiography" that he wrote to Fawcett. Now the originals aren't even at the NJSP Archives for examination and the best anyone has available are pictures and/or xerox's of the old Newspaper photos of them. This is hardly acceptable as comparisons to draw conclusions on by anyone's standards let alone an Expert's. So yes - I have been and will be very critical of such things.
Now it seems "Script(ed)" took a trip to the Archives and finally put one of the originals under glass to actually examine the writing properly.
A day late and a dollar short if you ask me.
Who in their right mind can now accept any conclusions this man makes - ex post facto? That's like allowing the cigarette companies to perform another study concerning nicotine - would anyone trust it? If so I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. I mean.... would we really expect "Script(ed)" to go down there and declare nothing less than he was right?
What's worse is that he didn't even make the examination for the purposes of comparison to the Hauptmann's known standards, rather, he made this effort (apparently) so he could call Trendley a "liar."
So we see "Script(ed)" adding his observations the "x(s)" weren't "overwritten." Even if "Script's" observations aren't a result of being delusional, as is my perception of some of his prior assertions, it certainly doesn't mean Trendley was a "liar."
Oh I forgot.... He has further "proof" Trendley was a "liar." "Script(ed)" backs up his position by saying the Jury in another case didn't buy his testimony (as if this seals the deal).
Huh?
Exactly as Kennedy wrote in his book The Airman and the Carpenter, Osborn declared Hauptmann had not written the ransom notes originally. Osborn had also been in cases were the Jury didn't buy his decision and fell on the wrong side of the verdict.... Therefore, by "Script(ed)'s" very own absurd arguments - Osborn was a "liar" too.
Can't have it both ways I am afraid but this is how these people are: Their approach, research, and philosophies are unbalanced. They see what they want to see and ignore what they don't. Then, as if that isn't enough, they level a finger of indignation at anyone who sees things differently AND any question or challenge to their position is taken as a personal insult...
How dare we!
The question of "overwriting" is absolutely nothing new and anyone who has been following my posts know this plus the fact I have even offered an alternative explanation for it.
Now hypocrisy rears its ugly head once again with "AB's" post of praise. His assertion that he " touch on some issues that have rarely (if ever) been examined since the 30's" is so ignorant its reckless. Is this the same guy who throws the word "revisionist" around like it doesn't apply to him and/or tells people to do a better job at researching as if he has set the standard? Good grief! Then to say "Script(ed)" is both "careful" and "professional" is based upon what exactly?
As opposed to his past behavior maybe. To label Trendley a "liar" based upon very shady pieces of hodge-podge which prove nothing of the sort is certainly neither professional nor careful.
"AB" and I appear to agree on one thing though and that is "there is no substitute," indeed, and those two posts referenced above prove it. What do you do, I wonder, when the Straw Man you continue to prop up against the post looks so much like you it could be your twin? I suppose you break all the mirrors in the house by constantly throwing stones.
Once again, if anyone ever sees something I post which can be challenged but you agree with me just because its me we'll have to close this board down immediately if not sooner. That type of behavior is phoney, and counter-productive at best.
For the record, Trendley wasn't the only Expert on the Defense team to make this observation, and this has been thoroughly examined well before "Script(ed)'s" most recent trip to the NJSP Archives. It's easy enough to learn about this if you're willing to DO THE RESEARCH.
God Bless the man who writes a handwriting "report" but doesn't know this.
|
|