re: An "Expert" Reassessment

Go down

re: An "Expert" Reassessment

Post by redpill on Tue Oct 28, 2014 6:29 pm

superdave got me banned for "stealing" his posts. i guess he's not heard of fair use under copyright

fair use wrote:
Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders.
Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

under fair use I can copy and respond to superdave's posts without acquiring permission from the rights holders provided it is limited, I give him quotation and reference, and I do not make money.

Superdave got me banned. As a Sith Lord I'm proud of what he did. Killing the master is what a Sith apprentice is supposed to do. But as a Science Lord I'm not amused.

anyhow SD claims here
Reload this Page An "Expert" Reassessment

2 Q.Now, Mr. Epstein, what exactly is
3 your theory about how all these individuals,
4 Chet Ubowski, Leonard Speckin, Edwin Alford,
5 Lloyd Cunningham, Richard Dusick and Howard Rile,
6 got it wrong and you, sir, beginning in the
7 year 2000, almost four years after the murder in
8 this case, and without access to any original
9 handwriting of any party you analyzed, got it
11 A. Very well. First of all, I'd like
12to say that the field of forensic document
13examination in the United States is a very small
14profession . . .
18Everyone knows everyone else. There
19are certain document examiners who . . . are looked upon by other
23examiners as leaders in their field.
. . . In this particular
2 case I think the fact that Howard Rile and
3 Lloyd Cunningham, who became involved in this
4 case very early on, and who were retained by
5 the Ramsey family, coupled with the fact that
6 Lloyd -- that Howard Rile came out of the
7 Colorado bureau and knew the people in the
8 Colorado bureau, I believe that that connection
9 was very instrumental in the Colorado bureau
10coming to the conclusion that they did, because
11Howard Rile had come to the conclusion that he
13Lloyd Cunningham works very closely
14with Howard Rile and they were both on this
15case, and then it was a matter of chain of
16events, one document examiner after another
17refusing to go up against someone who they knew,
18someone who was large in the profession, for
19fear that they would be criticized for saying
20something that another examiner -- it's sort of
21like an ethics within the medical community,
22where one doctor protects the other doctor.
. . . when it came down to Dusak and it
11came down to Speckin and it came down to
12Alford, by that time a number of well-known
13document examiners had already rendered
14conclusions, and I feel personally that the
15other examiners were simply afraid to state what
16they believed to be the truth, or that they
17simply didn't devote the necessary time. . .

6 And I just don't believe that some
7 of these people devoted the necessary amount of
8 time to the case to come up with the correct
9 conclusions, and I think they simply went along
10with what had been previously said because it
11was the most expedient thing to do.

how does Gideon Epstein know this? Did he personally witness this?
Was he personally present when Lloyd Cunningham and Howard Rile performed their analysis?

Have you ever considered Gideon Epstein might be an extremist fringe crackpot?

SD you do know that Linwood also deposed Gideon Epstein.

Undoubtedly, John Paul Osborn, certified by the ABFDE has an “approved” lab even though he is a private Document Examiner who has never worked for the government as I have or has never had government training as I have. My lab is no different than his. I am a former government Document Examiner for 11 years with Secret Service Training and 35 years overall experience and am willing to train ANY interested or qualified person in a way that will leave no doubt that they have been properly trained. Again, John Paul Osborn is ABFDE Certified and presumably can document that he complies with ALL ABFDE requirements. My lab is similar to his. Is this a case where the ABFDE bends their own rules to include someone while at the same time requiring a strict interpretation of the rules for someone they want to exclude?

I have stated before that the ABFDE was set up to EXCLUDE people not set standards for ALL Document Examiners based on statements made to me by a former Milwaukee Police Officer. What dishonor!!! What lack of integrity!!! What lack of fairness!!! What lack of objective standards!!!

It is obvious that the ONLY way to solve this problem of training in QD is a college level course that complies w/all academic standards such as Bloom’s Taxonomy as well as all scientific and legal standards available to ANY qualified student, regardless of whether they are related to the Osborns or have worked for a governmental agency as a Document Examiner.

There has been a long simmering debate between the government trained examiners and the privately trained examiners. No one owns the knowledge necessary to be proficient in this field. It is readily available in the existing literature. Indeed, Albert Osborn himself, never worked for the government nor had a two year training program, nor passed the rigorous and exclusatory standards set for by the ABFDE and IAI. The same is true for Ordway Hilton, another noted authority in the field of Questioned Documents who even proclaims in his book the virtues of self-learning.


The ABFDE was set up in 1977 with a Law Enforcement Assistance Agency Grant(which means they are required to follow ALL anti-discrimination laws)Their task was to set training standards for the field of Forensic Document Examination in a fair and impartial way.

However, through an inquiry I made to Congressman Rob Andrews, I learned that Document Examiners Certified by the ABFDE are comprised of 92% white men and 8% other-meaning women and minorities. The breakdown of the minorities was not specified to hide the fact that, based on information and belief, no black Document Examiners have ever been certified by the ABFDE even though a number of them are out there and I worked with one who was with the Philadelphia Police, Jaques Wambush from Jamaica. Contrary to setting objective stnadards for the field, it seems the ABFDE is trying to protect the millions of dollars in “no-bid” contracts their “white men” members(92%) are getting.

That I provided you with direct evidence from multiple sources like American Academy of sciences and American Forensic Association and the ASTM that ABDFE is the only valid FDE and that Cina Wong et al are total crackpots.

Folks, when a little child is killed, I'm really not interested in legal niceties. Do you go by the book? Or do you get some f***ing justice?!

Justice as you say is accepting the conclusion of the 6 ABDFE who examined the originals. You know what they said.

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 2285
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum