Joe for Michael 5260
Re: The sound of crickets.
Sun Dec 30, 2018 08:55
2607:fea8:1ca0:459:9031:d2e8:5a4f:7180

I'm sure Gus Lesnevich is a very competent and reliable document examiner, Michael. From your conversation with him, do you know if he was aware of the origin of the standards of comparison and the purpose of the evaluation, as requested by Robert Bryan?

  • Re: The sound of crickets.Michael 5260 for Joe, Fri Dec 28 10:14
    Gus Lesnevich has excellent credentials. He is a competent and reliable document examiner. There is no reason for us to think otherwise. I trust him. Because I trust Gus is why I called him about the ... more
    • Re: The sound of crickets. — Joe for Michael 5260, Sun Dec 30 08:55
      • Re: The sound of crickets.Michael 5260 for Joe, Sun Dec 30 10:42
        I didn't want to din Gus with questions about the standards of comparison. It didn't seem appropriate to start acting like an inquisitor during our conversation. Whatever the standards of comparison... more
        • Re: The sound of crickets.Joe for Michael 5260, Mon Dec 31 10:52
          In the absence of anything further, I'm left wondering a couple of things here. Firstly, how Kennedy could have claimed what he did in his book, ie. Gus Lesnevich determining that Hauptmann did not... more
          • Re: The sound of crickets.Michael 5260 for Joe, Mon Dec 31 13:20
            I do not know how Kennedy obtained Gus' opinion. I do know that Gus had been examining questioned documents for years for the government and in 1981 he went into private practice. Kennedy's book came ... more
            • Re: The sound of crickets.Joe for Michael 5260, Mon Dec 31 17:49
              I understand the logic here Michael, but I also have to believe that unless he lived in a cave, Gus Lesnevich would have understood categorically that Hauptmann was the writer of the Lindbergh... more
              • Re: The sound of crickets.Michael 5260 for Joe, Wed Jan 2 12:11
                We only have Gus Lesnevich's professional opinion in the back of Kennedy's book. His detailed examination "findings" were not explained. Robert Bryan has the complete written report and the standards ... more
                • Re: The sound of crickets.Joe for Michael 5260, Fri Jan 4 13:18
                  It's still an unusual situation the way I see it Michael, because I can't imagine any QDE who hasn't been living under a rock to not understand that it was Hauptmann who wrote each and every ransom... more
                  • Re: The sound of crickets.Michael 5260 for Joe, Wed Jan 9 12:37
                    I'm just as perplexed about it as you are Joe. This may be an itch we will never get to scratch. Kennedy also included Gunter Haas' contrary handwriting opinion in his book. Haas was a graphologist.... more
            • Re: The sound of crickets.Michael, Mon Dec 31 14:31
              I would expect two experts would be considered "equals." However, if one examined "less" material then I think that would start to upset that balance and question the equality between the two. So who ... more
        • Re: The sound of crickets.MichaelM, Mon Dec 31 08:49
          Since you asked Script - here are my thoughts: 1. What makes someone a QDE? If there is a standard and if one meets that standard how can they be either "good" or "bad?" Since they employ the same... more
Click here to receive daily updates