Yours is such a BOGUS argument.
The Forensic Document Examiners you speak of are normally called upon to authenticate a document. To authenticate a document does require examination of the original. But that is not what we are doing here. We are involved in demonstrating that some document is not authentic from a copy of that document.
You might have a look at the London Times of October 26, 1995. According to the Times, Reginald Alton, whom they described as an Oxford Scholar and leading British handwriting expert, declared the supposed suicide note of Vincent Foster to be a poor forgery. Alton, of course, was not given access to the original torn note. All he used to make his pronouncement was the image of the note published in the Wall Street Journal.
ML/NJ
Yours is such a BOGUS argument.
The Forensic Document Examiners you speak of are normally called upon to authenticate a document. To authenticate a document does require examination of the original. But that is not what we are doing here. We are involved in demonstrating that some document is not authentic from a copy of that document.
You might have a look at the London Times of October 26, 1995. According to the Times, Reginald Alton, whom they described as an Oxford Scholar and leading British handwriting expert, declared the supposed suicide note of Vincent Foster to be a poor forgery. Alton, of course, was not given access to the original torn note. All he used to make his pronouncement was the image of the note published in the Wall Street Journal.
ML/NJ
I don’t think anybody minds having discussions about whether there is a forgery or not. These discussions are interesting.