UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 28

Re: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds

From: Rick Nielsen <nilthchi.nul>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Archived: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:53:57 -0400
Subject: Re: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds


>From: Nick Pope <nick.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:17:06 +0100
>Subject: Re: Leaked 'Top Secret' UFO Documents Frauds

>>Source: PR Web - Ferndale, Washington, USA
>>http://tinyurl.com/25bc3p
>>July 24, 2007

>>[Links at site]

>>Leaked 'Top Secret' Government UFO Documents Proven Frauds
>>Long thought to be the 'smoking gun' of UFO and conspiracy
>>theorists - top secret documents alleged to have been written
>>by high ranking government and military officials, including
>>three U.S. presidents, and leaked to the public in the early
>>1980s, have now been proven fraudulent by forensic linguistic
>>testing.

>I've come late to this thread, so apologise if this question has
>already been addressed, but what status does the technique of
>using forensic linguistics to determine authorship have with the
>law enforcement community and with those in other parts of the
>criminal justice system?

Given your experience, I'm not sure how droll your intent, but I
have not seen your question asked previously on this thread.

I would like to respond. But I can only speak from three decades
of experience and training in criminal justice. And I still do
_not_ consider myself to be an expert.

In short, _credible_ witness testimony is ideal. All other
evidence can at best only support _credible_ witness testimony.
This is so in societies granting innocence until proven guilt,
whether one uses preponderance of evidence or the beyond
reasonable doubt standard.

However, when the witness is found to be less than credible, or
when the _credible_ witness is unavailable, unable, deceased (as
in the case of the MJ12 document authors), or unwilling to be
compelled to give testimony, corroboration from other _more_
credible sources, witnesses or static evidence, is often used.

Using forensic linguistics in a legal case would be satisfactory
only after an exhaustive level of research. In other words, a
committee of investigators would have to use all their
abilities, including peer review. They would have to play the
"what if" game ad nauseum. Only then could they submit their
findings to their supervisorsí higher standards. After that
review was satisfactory, the evidence could be submitted to the
judge who is the only one with authority to convict or let go.

Using a legal standard of evidence with the MJ12 documents would
_not_ support one credentialed researcher making a judgment on
his/her own.





Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com