Handwriting authentication

[Tim Nickerson]

Since Tim seems to respect the opinion of David Purtell:

“Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction. In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made.”

As you are aware, from the times we spent discussing the authentication of the handwriting on the money order by the HSCA experts and others,  that is something that I have acknowledged. And I've done so many times.

[Tim Nickerson]

As you are aware, from the times we spent discussing the authentication of the handwriting on the money order by the HSCA experts and others,  that is something that I have acknowledged. And I've done so many times.

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2613.msg94082.html#msg94082

[Martin Weidmann]

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2613.msg94082.html#msg94082

As you are aware, from the times we spent discussing the authentication of the handwriting on the money order by the HSCA experts and others,  that is something that I have acknowledged. And I've done so many times.

So, you agree that the "absolute" conclusions by the WC "FBI experts" are at best highly questionable?

[Tim Nickerson]

So, you agree that the "absolute" conclusions by the WC "FBI experts" are at best highly questionable?

Nope. I do not agree.

[John Iacoletti]

So you “acknowledge” the limitations of examining a copied document, but find the opinions conclusive anyway.

[Martin Weidmann]

Nope. I do not agree.

Care to explain this obvious contradiction?

[Tim Nickerson]

Care to explain this obvious contradiction?

The conclusions of the FBI on the handwriting seen in the photograph that they made from microfilm are minorly questionable, not highly questionable.  They also made conclusions on original documents. Those conclusions are not questionable at all. 

[Martin Weidmann]

The conclusions of the FBI on the handwriting seen in the photograph that they made from microfilm are minorly questionable, not highly questionable.  They also made conclusions on original documents. Those conclusions are not questionable at all.

Tim,

Conclusions by experts are always questionable to some degree. In many cases the two sides will present their own experts who will provide completely contradictory conclusions about the same evidence.

That said, the conclusions they made on original documents were not the subject of this conversation. An expert can be a thousand times right on other original documents and still be wrong on a non-original. And besides, can you explain how an original signature on an original document can be authenticated to having been written by a now dead person?

And finally, whether you say that their conclusions about the Kleins' documents are "minorly" or "highly" questionable, you're only talking about the degree of questionability. In either case the bottom line is that those conclusions are in fact still questionable! Agreed?