I know you can't libel the dead. But that doesn't mean there isn't another legal theory for a cause of action.
Bump
Hmmmm. They had to say they were personal papers because falsifying official documents is a felony, and the Justice Department could have launched an investigation.<p.However, if these were personal papers, released without permission of the estate, perhaps there is a possibility of a lawsuit against CBS for defamation of the late Col. Killian's character.
CBS says they were "personal". I suspect it would also be appropriate to file suit for theft of said "personal" papers. Let a court decide if they are real or not.
Please add:
"This fraud has defamed the proud name of Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, a man who served his country well. In order to ensure that such libelous acts are discouraged in the future, the Killian family will seek punative damages against those who allowed this fraud to occur."
Where's the 'you'll hear from our lawyer' sentence? Edwards should be all over this like a cheap suit. Hey, here's some work for him after Nov. 2.
They should sue CBS. This time next year they will be very rich.
Even the threat of a lawsuit would force CBS management to roll over.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of your proposed message open several doors that contradict paragraph 1. CBS and the kerry campaign would benefit immensely if for no reason other than arguing that the family alludes to the possible existence of the alleged information as well as documents.
Paragraph 1 would be sufficient if they would prepare a statement/affidavit. Hopefully they can and will undertake a civil action that will allow them to determine the source of and chain of events behind the CBS matter.
Dan Rather's stand
By Wolf Blitzer
CNN
http://cnn.usnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Dan+Rather%27s+stand+-+Sep+10%2C+2004&expire=-1&urlID=11603991&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2004%2FUS%2F09%2F10%2Frather%2Findex.html&partnerID=2004
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- This is not the first time Dan Rather has found himself in a serious dispute with a U.S. president.
There was this exchange in 1974 during the height of the Watergate scandal with then-President Richard Nixon:
Nixon: Are you running for something?
Rather: No sir, are you?
And there was this exchange with then-Vice President George Bush in 1988 over the Iran-Contra scandal.
Rather: I don't want to be argumentative, Mr. vice president.
Bush: You do, Dan.
Rather: No -- no, sir, I don't.
Bush: This is not a great night, because I want to talk about why I want to be president, why those 41 percent of the people are supporting me. And I don't think it's fair to judge my whole career by a rehash of Iran. How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?
Now, the 72-year-old CBS News anchor finds himself in yet another confrontation with a Republican president.
"I want to emphasize: I stand by my president. We are in a time of war, and I stand behind my president. There is not joy in reporting such a story, but my job as a journalist is not to be afraid, and when we come with facts, and legitimate questions supported by witnesses and documents that we believe to be authentic, to raise those questions no matter how unpleasant they are," Rather said Friday.
At issue is his report on "60 Minutes" that aired Wednesday -- a report that included documents purporting to show that the current President Bush, while serving in the Texas Air National Guard, did not meet all his military obligations.
"They [the White House] have not answered the question of did or did the president not obey or obey an order? Was he or was he not suspended for failure to meet performance standards of the Air Force? If he didn't take the physical, why didn't he take the physical?" Rather said.
But now, there are questions about the authenticity of the documents released by "60 Minutes."
The Washington Post says the "60 Minutes" documents are not consistent with other documents released by Bush's Air National Guard unit in the early '70's.
"If you compare the documents that CBS produced with the documents that we know to be authentic, that did come from Bush's National Guard unit, none of those documents use proportionate spacing. And that's only one of the anomalies," says the Post's Michael Dobbs.
Experts contacted by CNN say there are some inconsistencies in the type style and formatting -- noting those styles then existed on typewriters but were not common. They also say only a review of the original documents -- not copies -- can completely resolve the matter.
Beyond that, surviving relatives of Bush's then commander, Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the author of the purported documents, insist they are fake. They say Killian always believed Bush was an excellent pilot and that he never wrote these documents. Killian died in 1984.
"The story is true. The story is true," Rather said. "The questions raised in the story are serious and legitimate questions."
Rather denies there is any internal CBS News investigation under way -- a statement backed by the network.
Rather also said the possibility of issuing any kind of recant or apology was "not even discussed. Nor should it be."
If they are personal docs of the deceased, they belong to the estate of the LTC...IOW's...the family.
RATHER: STICK TO YOUR GUNS!!!
(it will only be that much more embarrassing for him when he is forced to bite the dust later)
If anyone of that era ever tried to cut and paste to make a document look like something it wasn't, then he/she will recognize the difficulty of placing numerals or letters beside each other at exact levels.
Note the 111 in the documents being discussed. The bottom of the numeral "1" is not exactly even with the numeral beside it. This happened to me frequently in those days when I tried to cut and paste.
There are so many obvious discrepancies in these documents that no person who lived in the 60's and 70's and worked with documents (especially if they worked on documents in military installations) could believe these are copies of undoctored documents, IMHO.
I think your suggestion is excellent and Icall on the Killian family to add this phrase:
"Dan Rather is a do do head"
Does anybody know any of the players in this little drama?
It is my understanding that Hodges and Staudt would have good cause for action claiming defamation.
And the Killians certainly have a legal ground for a suit regarding use of personal papers of a deceased man, especially misrepresenting them.
No more Rather!
Public statement and press release by SON (mother by his side):Based on overwhelming forensic evidence, significant internal discrepancies, and our intimate knowledge of the husband and father we knew as Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, we believe the documents presented on CBS 60 minutes II are forgeries.
According to CBS, these are purported to be personal records of LtCol Killian and, if genuine, would rightfully belong with his family. But we have never seen these documents. We did not and would never authorize any documents of this nature for public release.
CBS News has harmed my father's good name and memory by broadcasting forged documents they alledge were written by him. Today we are demanding that CBS News RELEASE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS THEY HAVE IN THEIR POSSESSION WHICH THEY ALLEGE ARE THE "PERSONAL" PAPERS OF MY LATE FATHER. We want the release to be public, not just to the family. Since we believe these documents are forgeries, we hope other media outlets will examine them and determine whether CBS relied on shoddy forgeries to "sex up" their story.
To date, CBS has refused to release these documents. We believe the family has a right to see them. Thank you.
humbly hope that the family will issue some type of formal statement or news release of this nature. If anyone can get this post to them, p;ease forward it.I second that. Amen!