Re: The sound of crickets.
Mon Dec 31, 2018 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 techniques shouldn't they all pretty much see the same thing? If not then I'd say we have a problem with that "science."

2. You give a really good outline above where you explain the costs associated with your services. Yet - you mail a letter offering to secure the final product from someone for a couple of stamps? No wonder you didn't get an answer.

3. Next, why would someone "welcome" a guy who has already drawn a rock solid conclusion with the expectation that they would make a neutral evaluation of the writing? Sounds like a page from Alice in Wonderland if you ask me.

4. Furthermore, I see a ton of "speculation" about what standards were used and this presumption that the QDE evaluating would need to hear what "good" standards are and what isn't. Or what he used or did not use. If they were "bad" wouldn't a QDE say they cannot be used or is it just certain QDEs who are aware of this? Is there a branch or society of "secret" QDEs that have specific skills that others do not? If so Script please come clean and let us know if you are a member and what your rank among them is.

5. I'd say we ARE supposed to know what was used. And whatever they were I'm damn near positive they exist at the NJSP Archives. Best way to get copies is to roll up your sleeves and find them yourself (might even learn something along the way).

So in summary: We should never "conclude first" then ask questions later. Why? Because that will paint one into a corner. Then what happens? Those who do find themselves in a position to defend something by explaining away things they do not like about which they do not know. But "many" do anyway. How is this done? By "imagining" the counter position as one that is easily defeated. Either that or they ignore it.

  • 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
Click here to receive daily updates