MARCEL MATLEY SAYS YOU CAN'T AUTHENTICATE A COPIED SIGNATURE (WHICH CBS CLAIMS HE DID)

A blogger (I can't recall who) | on or about 10 Sep 04 | A blogger (I can't recall who)

[CaptainVictory]

I cannot take credit for this. I saw it late last night on one of the blogs (I cannot remember which) and have not seen it posted here. Surely one of you good FReepers can give proper credit to the blogger who broke this. If this is a duplicate post, I also apologize.

It turns out that Mr. Matley says you CANNOT authenticate an original using a copy; only the original will do. On the other hand, authenticity CAN be RULED OUT by using a copy. Here is an excerpt from his paper entitled "Using and Cross-Examining Handwriting Experts," which he presented to the American Law Institute - American Bar Association:

"The Problem with Copies

"Do not passively accept a copy as the sole basis of a case. Every copy, intentionally or unintentionally, is in some way false to the original.

"In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible."

See his publication at: http://d2d.ali-aba.org/_files/thumbs/components/PLIT0209-MATLEY_thumb.pdf

[Hank All-American]

So much for the signatures being authenticated by CBS. GREAT POST!

[rwfromkansas]

hmmmm

[Yaelle]

Nya ha ha!

[demlosers]

Well DUh, That would have been my first question to this so called 'expert,' "Did you have the original documents?"

A bought and paid for Dumb @$$.

[Boxcar]

I was the one who spammed that a few times yesterday. I wrote a Whole post on it, but it was deleted because someone else had posted the "ambush an expert" article. Appearently, the admin thought I was quoting from the same article, which I wasn't. So I just added it to other post about Matley.

Of course, someone could have posted it before me. Who cares, so long as the word gets out, MATLEY USSED TO SAY YOU COULD NOT AUTHENTIC SIGNATURES ON COPIED DOCUMENTS.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1212591/posts?page=10#10

[OldFriend]

The so called experts being exploited by CBS find themselves in deep doo doo.

They make their livelihood defending their positions and these are not defensible positions at all.

[rawhide]

This makes sense. To all but CBS. Don't let facts get in the way of a smear job.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Did he ever examine one or more of these new documents with an original signature?

[faithincowboys]

I think it was on Ratherbiased.com

[Boxcar]

Nope, he has stated he only looked at copies. CBS doesn't have anything but copies.

[libstripper]

It's so easy to forge a signature on a document since the electrostatic photocopier was invented that it's impossible to authenticae any photocopied document without either the testimony of the person who prepared the document or that of a reliable witness who says he or she observed the original and the photocopy is complete and accurate.

These things from CBS have to be viewed as forgeries unless CBS comes clean on its source and that source (probably the Kerry campaign or the DNC) produces the person who allegedly acquired the documents to authenticate them.

Scandals like this are why legal ruels of evidence are quite strict on authentication of questioned documents, and why news organizations should apply similar standards before they publish or rely on questionable documents.

[David M. Brooks]

John Dean recently wrote an article to the effect that John Kerry should sue the Swift Vets for liable, citing the successful Barry Goldwater liable suit against Fact Magazine. The reckless disregard for the facts and malice by CBS would seem ripe for a lawsuit, and I'd love to watch this guy being crossed on Court TV.

[Avenger]

Yes, because the original is sitting on someones hard drive at the DNC headquarters.

[AndyJackson]

Seems like some of these folks are not willing to drink the poison. Perhaps they realize that their professional reputations are in the process of being shredded. I mean, when your life's work is undone by a Freeper in about 10 minutes you know things are bad.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

This was found in the Bloggasphere by a blogger at 2 am wearing pajamas eating a stale Twinkie. Old media, oh where have your standards gone, to hell it would seem?

CBS expert Marcel Matley, expertly said, "he couldn't, before he said, he could." With Clinton we had to parse the word "IS." We now have to parse anything associated with Kerry, the phrases, "I did before I didn't, or, I didn't, before I did."

[Chaguito]

Want to file a complaint against Marcel? Here's the president of his professional org and the technical guy

To: presidentnade@aol.com,wsydnor@calpoly.edu

Subject: To: Katherine Koppenhaver, Re: Complaint against Marcel Matley

Date sent: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 21:45:08 -0700

Marcel Matley claims to have verified handwriting on the CBS memoranda ostensibly dealing with some aspect of Pres. Bush's Air National Guard Service. CBS does not claim to have the originals. Mr. Matley cannot possibly do a forensically-defensible analysis of a photocopy. Signatures and other script could easily have been scanned and pasted into the documents.

Whether or not the documents are forged, his agreement to participate in this way with CBS is unethical at the least.

Sincerely,

[DelphiUser]

OK, I don’t know if this has been mentioned yet (I can’t keep up with all the threads on this LOL!

There is a very good reason originals must be used to verify a signature. I have been involved in a court case where the whole case revolved around a signature, and the perp who went to jail use one of the following methods to “Forge” a signature:

1. If you Photo copy a signature, onto a transparency, and then photocopy it on to the “New Document” you can end up with a photocopy of a valid signature, on a bogus document.
2. If you scan in a signature, you can clean it up, and print it right with the document, for a “Clean” photocopy of the “non existent original”
The reason an expert will not validate a signature on a ”copy” is they cannot look at pen pressure, speed, and several other details that I do not pretend to understand, the point is a photocopy of a signature is meaningless.

If you’ve ever closed on a house, you know why they have you signing 10,000 things now.

[DelphiUser]

use = used

Doh!

[cwb]

"John Dean recently wrote an article to the effect that John Kerry should sue the Swift Vets for liable..."

---

The fact that Dean would suggest this is a testament to his own ignorance. Not only would this open the door for the release of the records Kerry wants to keep secret, the issues here involve people who were witnesses to the events described...at best, a he said/she said.

The irony here is that even if the "official" records support Kerry's contentions, the media's attempts to discredit Bush's official records leave them in a bind and open Kerry to the same criticizm...or Bush to the same legal remedies. By all means, sue, Mr. Dean...so we can see who wrote all Kerry's after action reports and who submitted his requests for citations.