|
Post by rick3 on Sept 4, 2010 19:38:30 GMT -5
Wowey.....that really is a complicated theory, even though I dont know who Purdy/Klien are whatever happened to KISS? I suppose all this is to circumvent the shelving, climbing, sawing theory of BRH going up into the attic to get a 6" t&g board for a 4" ladder? Yes that was a huge roadblock to common sense.
Im pretty certain that this just provides BRH, and others?, more convenient access to lumber from up in the attic? [And then nothing else changes?] Is there some hidden or cryptic punch line missing or is that the whole theory?
But how does that account for NJSP carpenters up in the attic for days or weeks sawing away under the instructions of Bormann/Koehler before putting humptys attic together again before the immaculate discovery?
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 5, 2010 8:25:22 GMT -5
But how does that account for NJSP carpenters up in the attic for days or weeks sawing away under the instructions of Bormann/Koehler before putting humptys attic together again before the immaculate discovery? I didn't realize that Bormann and Koehler were actively directing NJSP carpenters up in the attic for days or weeks. What required all this time and labor? Are you saying that they put a new floor in? I would think that if the intent was to frame poor Haupy by installing a board that matched the ladder rail, they would be in and out very quickly. Now , with this revelation that they had in fact spent a week up in that attic I think we can safely put to rest any thoughts of a simple board substitution.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 5, 2010 17:44:54 GMT -5
"In philosophy, theory (from ancient Greek theoria, èåùñßá, meaning "a looking at, viewing, beholding") refers to contemplation or speculation, as opposed to action.[1] Theory is especially often contrasted to "practice" (Greek praxis, ðñᾶîéò) a concept that in its original Aristotelian context referred to actions done for their own sake, but can also refer to "technical" actions instrumental to some other aim, such as the making of tools or houses. "Theoria" is also a word still used in theological contexts..."
KK--this new theory rivals your two ladder climbing theory back at Highfields...or was it the two up the ladder theory...? Doesnt this expose Rail 16 to all sorts of criminals and wood scroungers. Like Fisch, Noso, and Paul H. Wendel? Just about anyone could have gone down the Rausch basement and walked off with that wood? At least up in the attic it was protected by access to the Hauptmann closet? In the Milwaukee papers around Dec 1935, Koehler was quoted first that the vanity closet ladder rails matched the wood on the ladder? As the investigators moved up into the attic--they settled on the flooring. Didnt the electrician-plumber or roof fixer upper say that the attic floor was completely intact when he was up there fixing the pesky leak that got the ransom "all wet?"
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 5, 2010 18:23:44 GMT -5
Anyway, still working on Chapter 2. However, I do think my next chapter will be on Garsson (maybe). I'll just produce chapters on various subjects then either cut them out in the end or have someone direct me on how to place them into proper order.MM Comon Michael--you've got to kick it up a notch on your book--maybe commit to a Chapter a Month? Even Dan Browne was 3 years over on his estimated time to release The Lost Symbol on 15 Sept 2009! All your fans and supporters are counting on you!
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2010 8:54:23 GMT -5
Here's the thing..... When you don't have any answers then its normal to assume every possibility then to apply the one which fits into whatever personal theory you like at the time.
A lot went on in that attic. There was a ton of secrecy to include keeping the FBI in the dark (even banning Agent Wright from the premises).
But now its time to re-focus on what could have been going on in light of this new information.
For my money you had Cramer and Enkler tearing apart the house looking for ransom money. Once the theory that S-226 was the other half of Rail 16 came into focus then this secrecy was of the utmost importance AS WELL AS framing what they had to ensure it came solely from Hauptmann and nobody else.
Having the only place Hauptmann could have gotten that piece of wood being in that attic - by which only he or his wife could get it - was their goal here. So all the nonsense surrounding this evidence was really about this... The back-dating and lies weren't due to a "replacement" piece of wood, rather, everything else to make this evidence air-tight.
And before anyone chimes in to say they wouldn't do that we've seen these types of "liberties" in many other places to include Witnesses (e.g. Achenbach, Whited, Hochmuth, etc.), other evidence (e.g. footprints, fingerprints, Look-outs, etc.), actions (e.g. physical violence, threats of prosecution, coercion, hiring a Defense Attorney, etc.)
So in the end, I believe they felt Koehler was right about Board #27, or they felt no one could impeach his testimony about it, so they simply set it up where the Defense couldn't say, for example, that Fisch had gotten the board from Hauptmann's garage, basement, or wherever else it may have been or could have gotten to. And so, Hauptmann did all of these crazy things to get that board for the sole purpose of making it a Rail for the kidnap ladder.
And it's also why, by all accounts, Hauptmann is so cock-sure this board didn't come from his attic. He knows he didn't climb up there for it, and constantly refers to the boards in his garage he could have used. Well, what he doesn't realize is boards from that cellar - which he took - came from the construction of this house AND one came from that attic. So, without realizing it, he is incriminating himself. It's obvious he never puts two and two together because he keeps bringing this up over and over.
Again, anyone can feel free to disagree with me, however, it all makes sense whereas before this, none of it did.
Rick, I don't want to pat myself on the back but, my 1st chapter is something I believe will make anyone who studies this case say "wow." Now, I've had it looked over to make sure I wasn't imagining my information and I was told it was really good excepting the editing which anyone reading my posts know is essential to fine tune anything I write). Look, even if I drop dead today, this chapter is majorly significant. And its how I want every chapter to be....so bear with me. It will take a while, but already Chapter 2 is shaping up to rival the 1st.
Thank you for the support Rick. I am thinking even those who will hate it, and I know they will, they will not be able to say I was wrong about anything I write. They just won't like what's written.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 6, 2010 9:04:11 GMT -5
Thanks for the etymology lesson, Rick. Now I think I see the problem. You are confusing me with a theorist. Truth is I am as far from that as possible. My stock and trade is reality and the practical. I don't propose anything unless it is based on my experience and first hand knowledge. In that respect I will tell you that regarding the issue of the ladder rail and the floor board I know exactly what steps are required to accomplish the various actions which would be required. I know from experience, not theory, what tools are required, what problems would likely to be encountered, and how to accomplish it. It's easy enough to say that BRH just went up into the attic and took a piece of flooring. It's just as easy to say the police somehow fabricated a matching board or to say that someone took apart a table and punched some holes through the base. It's quite a different thing to actually perform these tasks. I have or I have performed similar operations many times. It comes with the territory. That's why I so often recommend that people try similar actions. Theory is fine, it can make for interesting discussion. But reality is reality, and it can quickly make a theory dissipate. That's especially true when the theory is constructed without regard to practical knowledge and context. I do realize, however, that regarding the LKC there are various agendas at work which result in the purposeful disregard for reality. Thus there are those who will not accept anything but a theory that supports a preconceived version of events. I can't say that I understand this agenda driven method, but I certainly must acknowledge it's existence. So it's not at all surprising that some will attack any proposal that doesn't fit the preconception. Oddly enough, this is the one aspect of the case where those who hold completely opposite preconceptions actually come together. Thus the notion that the floorboard was retrieved from the Rausch basement upsets both those who believe in Hauptmann's absolute guilt and those who believe in his innocense, since anything that deviates from the standard line of him climbing into the attic for that board becomes threatening. And that's simply because one side sees it as allowing others to have had access to the board while the other sees it as making it far more reasonable for that board to have ended up on the ladder. That's the LKC shuffle.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 6, 2010 10:41:54 GMT -5
Michael:
Yes, I agree this is what makes it so....attractive....it doesnt really favor any one side or another! The perps are trying to look as innocent as snow, and the cops are trying to make them even more guilty of sins than they might be? The great struggle of the good in the bad and visa versa. Utimately, the key is found about half ways in-between somewheres in the middle...the secret being in balance. This comes into play in Joe's analysis of the symbol...BRH vs. CAL.
There is some great irony in the ladder boards coming from the basement, if true, big kudos to Kevin and Rab. How would Wilintz like to explain that to the Jury? I am no big fan of AK, but im not in a good position to explain the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? After all, he tried to get the whole 9 yards from The Governor. Does your outline include an entire Chapter on Koehler's efforts?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2010 15:20:34 GMT -5
It's why this board is so important. You don't give up on something that "isn't right" and eventually something will break. But it usually requires several ideas coming together and open minds.....
There is a plan to include the ladder and the wood evidence in the book. However, I am not inclined to think anyone who knows about the case is really interested in truths that had been presented in other books to be repeated. So I intend on keeping proven history to a minimum and bring out new material or fixing the old version of history that is incorrect. Of course there is a need, here and there, to present a scenario as it has been presented already in order to put things into their proper perspective - but my main goal is to turn everything upside down with real facts that "everyone else" didn't know existed, ignored, or tried to hide.
It will tell an old story through a new set of eyes about various important aspects. And those eyes will be from the angle of looking for the truth in a situation regardless of what that is. I have so many things I want to include but I also know, in the end, much will have to be cut out in order for it to work or get published. But I am getting way ahead of myself. I know how long this is going to take so try to bear with me. It's really hard to explain. I don't want to "miss" anything so I want to be certain I can pool from ALL that I have to make sure it will be the best of everything. For example, some of my material is hard to read, so I may spend days trying to figure out what's written (handwritten, bad copies, small print, etc.) I don't want to have a letter saying something it doesn't. Since I have so much it takes so very long to assemble then to type, then to re-type. As I said before I am leaving the "editing" for later.... I have no idea how long that will take once it comes to that point.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 6, 2010 16:57:35 GMT -5
Another example real quick.....
I was going through a "MISC" Ladder File I created. As I was reading through it I noticed section dedicated to documents from a Lawyer who was representing someone who wanted to remain anonymous. I copied it long ago because I always found its contents to be interesting but never really considered it much over the years because the person interviewed is unknown. That is, until just about an hour ago. I read through it, and it says this person was interviewed by Police on a certain date. It said he was staying at a certain place, had a certain trade/work. Then it mentioned where he lived now. So I decided to see if I could reveal his identity by digging through my files.
I did, and he is creditable. Some good stuff now that I know who it is. You never stop learning....
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 6, 2010 17:04:51 GMT -5
mike hope you had a good labor day. people dont realize how many people examined the ladder besides koehler. i went through my fbi files and some chemists names came up and i have there reports
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 7, 2010 16:48:03 GMT -5
You too Steve....
Yes, the ladder was viewed, touched, and made its rounds whole and in pieces. That was one of Pope's arguments - that it wasn't the same ladder that was found because of it being cut, disassembled, etc.
The morning of March 2nd was damn near Chaos.
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 8, 2010 10:12:15 GMT -5
Hello Folks, Such a terrific discussion going on!! Am fascinated. Re: your book, Michael. I'm so excited about it! I might remind you, now, I'm already 72yrs old. ;D I'm here to tell you, though, I don't aim to kick the proverbial bucket until I have one of the first copies. Repeat, first. I can see from your description what a major project it must be.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 9, 2010 2:19:48 GMT -5
I didn't realize that Bormann and Koehler were actively directing NJSP carpenters up in the attic for days or weeks. What required all this time and labor? Are you saying that they put a new floor in? I would think that if the intent was to frame poor Haupy by installing a board that matched the ladder rail, they would be in and out very quickly. Now , with this revelation that they had in fact spent a week up in that attic I think we can safely put to rest any thoughts of a simple board substitution. KK--in the first place, noone ever suggested that any "throw down" or "throw up" wood was in your words...a simple board substitution? We have the worlds foremost wood scientist on board our train and he has had months/years to search for the ladder wood...from sea to shining sea. No costs denied! So he can do better than that! Second, just the existance of your new and improved theory suggests that even you realized that a real carpenter would never remove all the shelves and linens from the hall closet and drag a saw up that tiny opening to the attic looking for any ladder board! That was all crazy prosecution talk right from the get go. Voilla! But is your solution to this puzzle the only one possible? It solves only a small part of The Ladder Mystery--the climbing up into the closet part. Now we have BRH climbing "down" into the basement and choosing a 6" T&G pine board to put the finishing touche' on a ladder made entirely of 4"finished lumber from where? Well, we dont know because AK never traced all of the rest of the lumber...just the weirded-out Rail 16-- the odd man out? And what do you know...the only board that can be traced comes from the BRH attic? And only after 24 searches of the attic and backdated reports by Det. Bornmann....AKs BFF for 18months! Its truly a CSI miracle? Michael--was Lewis Bornmann called to testify at Flemington trial?
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 9, 2010 5:59:09 GMT -5
Mairi,
Thanks for the support - that made my day. I promise many new details and information. It's just putting it all together that's the hard part.
Rick,
Bornmann testified about many things... the crime scene, the ladder, and Hauptmann's apartment. And there's that statement Steve referenced and many reports concerning his wood investigations with Koehler, the crime scene, AND Hauptmann's attic. He was also interviewed later in life and even planned a book of his own.
As to Koehler....
It's hard to ignore that if Rail 16 did originate from Koski that Rails 12 & 13 did not, in all probability, come from National. But its still no justification for lying under oath about conclusions he made in 1933. This is where all of the whirlwinds of speculation come from. And so while you do indeed have lies - the reasons for them my seem to some - justifiable.
So you have someone who believes in their heart Hauptmann is guilty saying a chisel was found in one place, when it wasn't, or that he made conclusions in 1933 - that he made in 1934 after Hauptmann's arrest and without the scientific support he used to draw his conclusions in 1933.
It's contrary to Keraga's assertions about how everything went down. Ironic isn't it? However, it is what it is, and now with this new information - it seems an impossible circumstance to beat that at least Hauptmann was involved.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 9, 2010 20:20:42 GMT -5
or
Hope you can see where this seems confusing.
You really ought to cut Koehler a break. I doubt the FBI of today could do better with it. What's more important is that Koehler took, or at least tried to take, the evidence to another level. He got pretty close, at that.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2010 6:08:43 GMT -5
I have to disagree here, the FBI today would have this sewn up in no time, but I understand your point....
Koehler did take it to the next level of investigation from a scientific perspective. But he's not without flaws. I've seen where he completely ignored a Planer Manufacturer when they attempted to correct a position he made about how many knives made a certain cut. His conclusions concerning Rails 12 & 13 in 1933 are either right or they're wrong. But during the Trial he ignores the points he made in '33 to say he drew the conclusion about National during that year when his reports clearly state he did not. Then there's the "floating" chisel - he knew where those chisels were and where they were found but still chose to play that game on the stand. And of course there's the misrepresentation about where exactly S-226 was & when - after the fact.
These distortions of the record are my biggest gripe because it undermines the truths of what he did find. It's almost like he was afraid his work would have gone to waste if he didn't fudge some things during trial or in certain reports.
So for me, he's neither a hero nor a villain, rather, simply a pawn who I am sure was proud of his work but died with certain regrets about his actions concerning it.
You testify to the absolute truth then let the chips fall where they may. He didn't do that here, unfortunately, and it called into question evidence, and will probably always create a whirlwind of speculation that never needed to exist if he just did the "right" thing from jump-street.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 10, 2010 7:36:23 GMT -5
I doubt that the modern FBI would have any better luck at finding the kidnapper by the identification of the common wood components of the ladder alone. If they had that ability they surely would have been able to id the Unabomber. There just isn't enough there. Of course when I say give Koehler his due, I am only referring to the investigative actions which were quite impressive for the period.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 10, 2010 16:08:22 GMT -5
I think Koehler was probably the first to do what he did. It's why Pope was proclaiming "there's no such animal" when the term "wood expert" was brought up.
However, let's not forget that a Gas Station Attendant is who really caught Hauptmann and Koehler's work came into play after that.
The Unabomber was tied to his box after the fact too, but let's not forget the size of the samples we're talking about here. The problem nowadays is tracing lumber might have to be a world-wide effort. Back then you had specific regions to zoom in on. It's just not comparable. My position is based upon the FBI and their expertise - now - focused on the Case - then. They would have traced the source of the ponderosa pine too in my opinion.
It's kind of like playing fantasy football or asking who would win if the 1962 Packers played the 1972 Dolphins.
So I suppose one could speculate if Koehler was alive now he'd be in the FBI lab running the show....
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 10, 2010 17:56:59 GMT -5
I think Koehler was probably the first to do what he did. It's why Pope was proclaiming "there's no such animal" when the term "wood expert" was brought up. However, let's not forget that a Gas Station Attendant is who really caught Hauptmann and Koehler's work came into play after that. All Im saying is that there is still something "unsettling" about the wood evidence, how it was collected and ASamuelsohn--it could have been alot more cut and dried without Bornmann's hystronics and the secrecy and the nailholes and a few odds and ends still loose like that. Quite clearly, Hoffman and his team had alot of heartburn about the attic evidence and how it was presented--they were dealing with the case "live and upfront"? They didnt have any love affair with BRH--I think that they just believed that every sucker should get an even break before he is toast? Its quite surprizing that checking around FPL there is really nothing left in terms of actual evidence, no wood evidence at all still saved there? Couple of boards with some roller marks on them from some sawmills? A few photo negs, but nothing either incriminating or esculpatory. Mostly, news clips about AK scouring the country for a mill match...and going on Radio Shows. The oddest restricktion is that no microscopic samples of the ladder or wood evidence were retained or can ever be examined scientifically--no matter how small? Even the Shroud of Turin got snipped... One might think that a true scientist would want to add the frosting to the cake with all the new technology available? Dr. Zahi Awass is always putting them mummies in a CAT scan on Nat Geo!
|
|
mairi
Lieutenant
Posts: 548
|
Post by mairi on Sept 10, 2010 18:12:15 GMT -5
Hi Rick, Remarkably, just today I was thinking about the Turin shroud tests as compared to not allowing any on the LKC relics. Do you think NJ (the powers that be)doesn't want to run any risks about the "official" story? At times it does cross my mind. As to Zahi, he's a one man show, isn't he! ;D
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 10, 2010 22:10:22 GMT -5
Then throw all of it out. Toss it, ignore it, put in a vault at FPL with the CCA wood. It's all a dog and pony show anyway. So forget it, forget Koehler, Keraga, and anyone else connected with it. It really doesn't matter anyway because it all ends with the money. And the real detective here, the one who really deserves the credit for finally destroying the Fisch story is Rab.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2010 6:43:32 GMT -5
Sure. There's black, white, and various shades of gray in between.
When you have the "secrecy" and misrepresentations that went on along with some very serious suspicions its easy to jump to the worst conclusions. However, as we now see here, there are other - less nefarious - than can be true instead.
Koehler did make his own invasive study and smaller pieces removed off the ladder did exist as a result. I could look this up for you. However, they wouldn't let anyone do anything further from a certain point on.
Good point. Rab doesn't get the credit he deserves. However, I am going to address the "Fisch Story" and bring something new into the picture. (Steve is really going to hate me if I live to get this project done.)
The wood for me at this point, after being properly explained by yours & Rab's "theory" (which for me now is a foregone conclusion) is very strong evidence despite all the Police/Koehler efforts to hide certain facts in order to protect it.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 11, 2010 8:03:52 GMT -5
no, i wont hate you, is that koehler did a great job, considering people examined the wood before him but dont think they took it apart. +i think a guy named betts, charles saylor dr. auchter, and kellerman. they also took soil samples from the ladder a guy named wh fry he was a soil petrographer.. i also have a letter schwarzkopf sent a wood guy from hartford conn, just asking him about the dowl pins from the ladder. i thought that was odd. as far as the fisch story i think its total B.S. i see no real evidence he had hot money or was ever involved. the shoebox story is comical and his explanation of dr condons phone number on the board is crazy
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 11, 2010 8:17:15 GMT -5
It was taken apart before Koehler. Later, it was taken apart and sent back and forth, a couple of pieces at a time, to Madison for Koehler's examination. One time they broke through the package and spilled out in the train car.....
The Fisch Story always seemed like BS. The finances testified to at trial have been called into question by Rab's research though despite his position the Fisch Story was "just a story." Perhaps a story isn't always completely fictional?
The best thing about this Case is that if you look hard enough you find something worthy of mention.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 11, 2010 10:10:33 GMT -5
yes its a great case. i like reading about other cases like lizzie borden, and the stanford white murder. the book "american eve" is a great book on that murder. hes buried near me
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Sept 12, 2010 19:22:21 GMT -5
Hi Rick, Remarkably, just today I was thinking about the Turin shroud tests as compared to not allowing any on the LKC relics. Do you think NJ (the powers that be)doesn't want to run any risks about the "official" story? At times it does cross my mind. As to Zahi, he's a one man show, isn't he! ;D Hi Marie--yes its a pretty wierd day on the beach when the Vatican has larger stones than the NJSP? At least the Vatican was willing to step up to the plate and nail the 13th century.....but then they believe in blind faith as a backup? Rail 16 and S-226 are pretty big pieces of wood with no real use or importance in the future? Taking a dozen snippets for real live wood anatomistic examination really shouldnt give anyone (except KK) any heart burn or palpitationsl. [Better call 9-1-1] And there was/ is a whole attic full of 6" t and g to evaluate too? I'm always astonished when Internationally Reknown Wood Docs are interviewd afor TV Specials, but they have never seen the ladder up front and personal, and have seen no real wood forensics except AK/KKs photos? And the only photos left at FPL are for Life Magazine. I suppose the"New and Improved" theories of the true provenance of the wood evidence is designed to assuage any fears or suspicions? Too little too late? [Note: the opposite of invasive or microscopic investigation is "superficial"] Michael...over the years how many books have been promised never to materialize? HRO/Abe Samuelsohn...
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2010 6:58:42 GMT -5
Rick,
As someone who always wanted real "proof" that Rail 16 & S-226 "matched" I will defend the right to your position here. Every real Expert I have communicated with would use qualifiers each and every time they told me something.... For example, one of Keraga's Experts he used told me that he would have to "examine the wood in person" before testifying in Court and that Keraga's was going too far with the planer marks portion of his report.
It's these types of points that must be mentioned in a fair, neutral, and impartial evaluation of the FACTS. So their omission from his report ruins its integrity from where I am sitting. I am smart enough to draw my own conclusions so - you don't have to hide information from me.
Now, staying true to my philosophy here.... Others I have communicated with said they too would have to examine AND make invasive study. But they would also tell me they "think" it would be determined a match. Then of course I went on to find out the same board from the same tree might match, or that a board from the same stand of 2nd growth may match too (odds getting less as you get further away from the source), etc. I pursued this line as a result of watching what Koehler did - so he taught me something here.
But in the end, the odds are just too high knowing now the circumstances of the real situation that existed in the Rauch home. Combined with the totality of all the other evidence its reached a point where this extra mile is no longer needed from where I am standing.
But I can appreciate those who still do - particularly those who work in this field when they are taught Science then see others jumping to conclusions without employing the proper methods.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Sept 13, 2010 7:04:20 GMT -5
Many.... And I can understand why. Well, just know that I have 1 chapter done (in need of editing) and I happen to think its worth the effort. The next one will be too. I can't think too far ahead so I won't comment past this. It's all going to be good stuff. I can't write something I am not interested in so if it winds up being an "advanced" reader and I do not make 1 cent on it I don't care. It will fix the history of the Case which has been incorrect and oft repeated over all of these years. And if it doen't "fix" it then it will raise points, and issues that had never been for everyone to consider.
|
|
kevkon
Lt. Colonel
Posts: 2,800
|
Post by kevkon on Sept 13, 2010 16:59:14 GMT -5
There is such as thing as common sense.........................
How much good did all of the scientific analysis of the Shroud of Turin do? In the end I suspect most people kept their respective positions. The only people who would possibly benefit from an exhaustive and invasive study of the LKC ladder are those who are completely open minded and carry no prejudice. That's a pretty small group. The rest would do just as they do now, attack or defend the findings based on their prejudice.
|
|
|
Post by wolf2 on Sept 13, 2010 17:38:54 GMT -5
kel keraga was iopen minded, mike krakowski the document examiner who did a extensive study on the ransom notes and handwriting comparisons was open minded, and jim fisher was open minded. and how can you compare the forensics from this case to the shroud of turin? has nothing to do with prjudice
|
|