PIERCE TELLS REPORTER CBS GAVE HIM 'LOTS MORE DOCUMENTS'

Kerry Spot ^ | Sep 17, 2004 | Jim Geraghty

[Mike Fieschko]

Just exchanged emails with Garry Moon, columnist for the Athens, Ga. Banner-Herald. He shared a stunning bit of news with me, and said he wanted Kerry Spot readers to know, since he doesn’t know when his column is going to run in the Banner-Herald. Moon managed to contact James J. Pierce, the fourth expert that CBS has cited as one of its experts verifying its documents.

(I asked “who is James Pierce?” yesterday. In light of Moon’s news, maybe I was a little harsh on the guy.)

Moon writes:

I called Pierce at about 7:30 p.m. Thursday night. I told him I was with the Athens Banner-Herald newspaper, doing a piece about the Killian memos. He asked me how I got his home phone number, and I told him. I thought he might hang up, but he stayed on the line... maybe because I was upfront with him and not aggressive in asking him questions. He said he couldn't give me many details about his analysis of the documents that CBS gave him because he was still “in the middle of studying them“. More on that to come...

[snip]

- The key point: Pierce seemed upset that CBS is using his ‘Professional Opinion’ memo of 9/14 to prop up their defense about the Killian memos being authentic. Pierce said “CBS is wrong, CBS is wrong” to portray it that way, saying it twice for emphasis. He said that his PO memo was only a preliminary judgment, “not a final conclusion” on all the documents.

- The (for me) stunner: Pierce said that the reason he hadn't rendered a final conclusion yet was that he was only “midway through his analysis” of all the documents - speaking as though there were many docs. CBS gave you other documents besides the four that 60 Minutes used in the story? “Lots more documents” were his exact words.

So it seems like CBS News is - again - misrepresenting what their own experts have told them about the Killian documents. Indeed, given that “lots of documents” are involved, who knows whether the documents that he referred to in his PO actually concerned the four that 60 Minutes used in the story

First thought: Good job, Garry.

Second thought: Just what the heck are these other documents that CBS gave him? Was CBS planning a second follow-up story, using more documents from their source?

What else is CBS not telling us?

[FredZarguna]

Second thought: Just what the heck are these other documents that CBS gave him?

Here's the inventory:
Doc#
1 Tells what happened to Amelia Earhart
2 Proves Jim Morrison is still alive
3 Puts Woody Harrelson's Dad on the Grassy Knoll
4 Nicolai Tesla's schematics for a perpetual motion machine
5 Signed copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion
6 Lists what the Knight's Templar really found in Solomon's Temple
7 947 Absentee ballots from the Florida election for Gore, discarded because the "i's" were dotted with little pictures of Pat Buchanan
8 C++ and assembler source code for all of the upcoming 64-bit Windows kernel
9 Who killed Marilyn (with photos!)
10 The names of all Kitty Kelly's sources

[I'm ALL Right!]

This explains CBS's determination to stand by their story. If the first story is proven bogus, the next will be completely discredited before it even runs.

[Rocky]

Funny list.

[kittymyrib]

I guess Hellery isn't the only one with old FBI files in her closet. I'm sure they've pulled all the "Bush Family" documents and are going over them with a fine-toothed comb.

[ModelBreaker]

This probably has nothing to do with the CBS situation, but I went to DU yesterday just to see if they were depressed about the Kinkos stuff, and there was a thread about something big the Kerry camp has planned for October. Hmmm.

No surprise. It almost worked in 2000. But they have a higher hill to climb this year. The DUI had the advantage of being the truth. The Bush defied orders based on forged memos ploy as the opening shot after Labor Day smacks of desperation. They are out of real ammo. From here on out, it'll be Kitty Kelly type stuff that the networks try to pump up to having more substance than there is.

CBS helped us a lot as further 'shocking' revelations about Bush will be viewed by the public, presumptively, for what they are.

[BillF]

Why would they want to authenticate documents released by the DOD? And how would a document examiner be equipped to do so?

I've already replied, but I wanted to add something. Drudge has linked to a Washington Post graphic (click here) that illustrates a comparison between a document of unknown authenticity (CBS' forged document) and a document accepted as authentic (a true military document).

The WashPost graphic shows a comparison for consistency between a questioned document and a valid document, which was the type of comparison that I was discussing in my earlier posts.

[okie01]

The WashPost graphic shows a comparison for consistency between a questioned document and a valid document, which was the type of comparison that I was discussing in my earlier posts.

I recalled your post when I saw that graphic.

You're almost certainly correct. The "other documents" are probably authentic -- and innocuous.