Rather's Lawyer: 'Nobody's Proved the Documents Were Forgeries'

lgf ^ | Sep 20, 2007 | lgf

[george76]

It’s absolutely amazing, but Dan Rather and his lawyers are actually planning to argue in their lawsuit against CBS that the phony memos are genuine.

I’m going to say this again just to go on the record: the CBS “Killian” memos are frauds. It has been proven beyond all doubt. It is simply impossible that these documents were created on any machine available in the 1970s.

And for Dan Rather to continue insisting they are genuine shows either:

1) a disconnection from reality that borders on the psychotic, or

2) a blatant liar willing to go down in flames rather than admit the truth.

[jaydubya2]

I remember Mary Mapes saying that they (CBS) are just presenting the information they had. She beleives that it was not CBSs responsiblilty to prove them authentic or otherwise.

[BunnySlippers]

But of course, you and I know it was never up to people to have to prove they are forgeries ... it is ALWAYS up to someone making claims like CBS was to prove they were authenic.

It’s just stunning that Dan still doesn’t get that.

[ErnBatavia]

Who has the animated gif overlay of the Rather documents to the one created in Word?

I don't have that one, but offer up instead the image of his ravishing daughter.

[Robert357]

He is definitely a hypocrite, if not worse.

I strongly suggest that you read the reference in my tag line, as I am sure that some attorney for CBS will have the full text of the conference available.

In the tag line reference, Dan Rather states what criteria a "journalist" should use before he releases a controversial story. In particular he talks about the importance of fact checking.

With the right attorney cross examining him, Dan Rather will look like a fool and a liar in court, based on what he said about what journalists should do.

Go for it Dan.....this is your legacy!

[mnehring]

the sad part is that isn’t a photoshop.

[Waryone]

If the cBS lawyers were smart they’d be combing through these threads to help their case. Thanks to you and Buckhead, they did not get away with their forgeries.

[Saltmeat]

This is a fantastic lawsuit. Finally, Dan Rather and all of his accomplices will have to testify under oath about everything they know about the false documents. Rather’s case is the typical that’s my story and I’m sticking to it logic.

I can’t wait. Would love to be in the court room.

[jazusamo]

Thanks for the ping.

I believe Rather does suffer a disconnect from reality and is also a blatant liar. There were just too many incidents over many years he proved himself to be a weasel. I also think he may have been the bed wetter he was accused of being.

[jim_trent]

He is right, you know.

You cannot prove a forgery from a copy — which is all he had. A FAXed copy at that. You alwo cannot prove that it is authentic from a copy. The “fact” that it resembles (very closely) Word font and spacing is just very strong circumstantial evidence. Stuff that can be ignored if convenient.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Apparently they were typed in Word 2003 and printed with an inkjet printer and send through a copier a number of times to blur any distinguishing characteristics.

Had he used an actual typewritter, they would have been indistinguishable from authentic typewritten documents. The fax machine would hide any issues associated with aging and paper stock.

In the event the modern computer generated typefont, spacing and kerning were readily discernable in the faxes.

The forger was a person with absolutely no eye for detail.

[WL-law]

I remember some leftie finding out there was some high-tech typesetting equipment available at the time.

No, even that turned out not to be true. Nothing but Word could have done ALL the manipulations, ie, centering, font grouping, letter-spacing, shown in the doc.

[DBrow]

It all depends on what your definition of “forgery” is.

If a document is prepared to look like an original, or purports to be a true version of a real document, it’s a forgery, like a forged Delacroix oil painting or a deed to the Golden Gate Bridge.

If, though, there never was an original document, the document being presented as real is not a forgery, it’s a fake, a phony, a lie.

So the lawyer’s statement is true based on a number of factors, but prime among them is the fact that there never were the “CYA” memos or the others in the first place. You can’t have a forgery of a document that never existed.

[RetSignman]

‘Nobody’s Proved the Documents Were Forgeries to the Brain Dead...not developing.

[DaveMSmith]

Who has the animated gif overlay of the Rather documents to the one created in Word?

This?

[NeoCaveman]

That week in September was “Operation Fortunate Son” a full on media blitz of the MSM in coordination with the DNC. Another part of it was the 2 day interview on Today Show with Kitty Kelly whose book had just come out.

[az_gila]

It’s interesting, they could get around all of the “font stuff” if they could just say where the document came from...
But, Dan R. can’t even do that to any-one’s satisfaction.

He doesn’t even know where the document came from!

[sappy]

It was up to Dan and CBS to prove they were NOT forgeries. The burden of proof is at the foot of the accuser, not the accused.

[Mariebl]

I have a strong suspicion that whoever originailly produced the memos wasn’t aiming for authenticity.

[Mariebl]

The forger was a person with absolutely no eye for detail.

Or, someone who didn't care if someone spotted its inauthenticity. Visualize all the Photoshopped pictures that show up on Free Republic, with Looter Guy, Tourist Guy, Unlucky Lady, all showing up in unlikely places. Visualize one of those pictures getting into the hands of a newsman dumb enough to think it was real.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

I have a firm conviction that whoever originated those memos was an imbecile.