[okie01]

It's possible that some are, as yet unreleased documents, but I think many of the documents may be the actual documents about Bush from DOD.

Why would they want to authenticate documents released by the DOD? And how would a document examiner be equipped to do so? Unless he is a specialist in that particular type of document, he wouldn't be in a position to authenticate the style and jargon (the form and printing system would, of course, be authentic as could be).

Instead, I wonder if the additional documents are handwritten. Matley's specialty was handwriting analysis, not document authentication. What is Pierce's expertise?

Because, at this point, has not the ground been prepared to introduce handwritten documents? Killian's family and associates have all established that he did not type. Hodges was left with the "impression" that they were asking him about handwritten documents.

What if, for his next act, Rather introduces six handwritten documents that are otherwise textually identical to the Word docs? And they are attested to as being in Killian's handwriting?

It's a long shot. But it should be recognized as a possibility.

[okie01]

Ping to #50.

[okie01]

Thread of interest, relative to what your DC source was speculating.

In this connection, #50 may be of interest.

[Mike Fieschko]

What if, for his next act, Rather introduces six handwritten documents that are otherwise textually identical to the Word docs? And they are attested to as being in Killian's handwriting?

Then why use typed / word processed docs on your show in the first place?

Why would you save the handwritten docs, when they would have even greater weight than docs which weren't handwritten?

[BillF]

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

The DOD real documents would be used for comparison purposes, not to validate them. We start with the idea that the DOD documents are valid.

If one wanted to analyze a test batch of documents for validity, one technique is to compare them to a control batch of documents known to be authentic. Compare font, paper size, and other properties.

Consistencies between the test batch documents and the control batch documents reinforce the likelihood that test batch documents are authentic. Inconsistencies, especially significant or not explainable inconsistencies, reinforce the likelihood that the test batch documents are fakes.

Like a handwriting expert comparing a questionable signature to a known valid signature, one could compare the Kinko batch of documents to the authentic DOD documents.

[mattdono]

Interesting theory. Let me throw some ideas out...

First, one has to wonder if Rather and CBS already have too much "stink" on them that I'm not sure it would make a difference.

Second, if they have the handwritten documents it would only excerbate the obvious: that a source to SeeBS or someone at SeeBS went through extraordinary lengths to make these documents look authentic.

Third, if they have handwritten documents, the documents have to be verbatim matches to the forged documents to even consider the possibility of them being considered, at least, the authentic source of the information (orders, thoughts, CYA manuvers, whatever).

But, in the forged, word-processor written memos, there is notable content problems, in addition to the well-covered physical distinctions.

There is a very strong possiblity that Lt. Col. Killian didn't write anything like that, because...

1. that's not the way that he (Lt. Col. Killian) spoke or wrote, according to both the wife and son
2. the phrases used wouldn't have been in the documents because the phrasiology (is that a word? you know what I mean) is not that of an Air Force or Air National Guard officer
3. there are structural problems with the content, such as the "order to take a physical" coming from Killian when it would have come from the clinic commander (Killian was in operations); also, the presence of Staudt in a memo written 18 months after his retirement

So, even if they have handwritten documents and the documents are a "spot-on" match. There is still the content and structural issues about the documents.

Fourth, there is still the over-arching questions about the manner in which CBS has handled this...

• Not including commentary from the person/people who knew Lt. Col. Killian best: his wife and son (who also was a co-worker of LTC Killian and very familiar with the procedures in his dad's office)
• Excluding the concerns from several documents experts
• Ignoring the Col. Udell and Gen. (or Col?) Rufus Martin as a source to talk about 1) 1LT Bush and 2) Killian's assessment of 1LT Bush
• And, one of the biggest questions STILL not answered: WHO gave you these documents?

Finally, and quite relevant regarding the source of the documents, the Killian's have commented that there were no memos or personal notes that they collected when cleaning out his office. The memos were from his personal files and, if I am getting the story correct (based on what Lt. Col. Killian's son has said several times), the family collected any personal effects including paperwork. The official TANG reports that Killian had were handled by TANG personnel.

So, there are plenty of questions that have to be answered, just in case Danny Blather pulls out what he thinks is an "ace up his sleeve".

[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.