Thursday, September 09, 2004
Bush AWOL: Winger meme transmission in action on the Killian memos
Tinkers to Evers to Chance....
Wingers to Drudge to Standard—
And now to AP, in one news cycle! Are these guys good, or what?
Well. Let's leave aside the fact that "independent" Sandra Ramsey Lines is a contributor to a "shadowy" 527 group (here) (Republican, though pro-choice, here).
What's important is that Sandra Ramsey Lines is a member of the South Western Association of Document Examiners (SWAFDE, here). And SWAFDE's Constitution has a code of ethics:
Obviously, Sandra Ramsey Lines didn't examine the physical evidence; she compared the PDF versions of the Killian memos to her own printouts. It will be up to SWAFDE to determine whether, by violating Section 4 of SWAFDE's code of ethics in a highly charged political atmosphere, she also violated section 6:
We can't know why Sandra Ramsey Lines violated her own code of ethics by rendering a judgment, not on the basis of physical evidence, but on the basis of digital copies. But the point is a crucial one:
All of the wingerly speculation also hangs on the same point; they are examining images and digital reproductions only, at second and third hand; and there is no hope of determining the authenticity of a physical object using digital reproductions. Of course, they, unlike Sandra, have no code of ethics (though one can applaud their energy and ingenuity).
Why does the SWAFDE Code of Ethics insist on examining the physical evidence? For this reason:
Still, I'd like to know that the ink and paper were tested for age. And in the back of my mind is the chilling notion that salting false memos among true ones would be a highly Rove-ian ploy, since it would have the effect of discrediting all the work done disentangling Bush's young and irresponsible days. Not that I'm paranoid...
With that, goodnight moon!
UPDATE Not so fast... WaPo has its own expert, William Flynn, past president of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (the ABFDE, here). Here is the AFBDE's definition of "scientific":
The science of document examination, then, consists in the analysis of actual documents, not physical copies. So it appears that Flynn, too, violated the code of ethics of his professional association:
Again, rendering an opinion on the authenticity of a physical object by examining a digital copy of it is hardly scientific.
Very odd that these "experts" are so willing to offer unqualified judgments. Eh?
Wingers to Drudge to Standard—
And now to AP, in one news cycle! Are these guys good, or what?
Independent document examiner Sandra Ramsey Lines said the memos looked like they had been produced on a computer using Microsoft Word software, which wasn't available when the documents were supposedly written in 1972 and 1973.
"I'm virtually certain these were computer-generated," Lines said after reviewing copies of the documents at her office in Paradise Valley, Ariz. She produced a nearly identical document using her computer's Microsoft Word software.
(via AP)
Well. Let's leave aside the fact that "independent" Sandra Ramsey Lines is a contributor to a "shadowy" 527 group (here) (Republican, though pro-choice, here).
What's important is that Sandra Ramsey Lines is a member of the South Western Association of Document Examiners (SWAFDE, here). And SWAFDE's Constitution has a code of ethics:
Section 4. All professional opinions shall be rendered after a thorough examination of the physical evidence under scientific and absolutely impartial conditions.
(via SWAFDE
Obviously, Sandra Ramsey Lines didn't examine the physical evidence; she compared the PDF versions of the Killian memos to her own printouts. It will be up to SWAFDE to determine whether, by violating Section 4 of SWAFDE's code of ethics in a highly charged political atmosphere, she also violated section 6:
Section 6. Members shall strive to maintain an attitude of fairness and shall treat all cases equally.
We can't know why Sandra Ramsey Lines violated her own code of ethics by rendering a judgment, not on the basis of physical evidence, but on the basis of digital copies. But the point is a crucial one:
If we believe that the Killian memos are forgeries, we have to believe that CBS either (1) couldn't tell the difference between a letter printed from a laser- or ink-jet printer, and a typewritten letter, or (2) CBS didn't examine the physical evidence.
All of the wingerly speculation also hangs on the same point; they are examining images and digital reproductions only, at second and third hand; and there is no hope of determining the authenticity of a physical object using digital reproductions. Of course, they, unlike Sandra, have no code of ethics (though one can applaud their energy and ingenuity).
Why does the SWAFDE Code of Ethics insist on examining the physical evidence? For this reason:
There are people (like me) old enough to know that it is very easy to tell when a letter has been produced with impact technology, by striking a piece of paper with an inked metal key, and a letter has been produced with digital technology, by spraying bits of toner or ink. So let's hope CBS had such a person look at the Killian memos. I'm going to assume that they did; and that my liberal habits of giving all arguments respect have led me to give the winger's case for forgery more credence than it deserves.
Still, I'd like to know that the ink and paper were tested for age. And in the back of my mind is the chilling notion that salting false memos among true ones would be a highly Rove-ian ploy, since it would have the effect of discrediting all the work done disentangling Bush's young and irresponsible days. Not that I'm paranoid...
With that, goodnight moon!
UPDATE Not so fast... WaPo has its own expert, William Flynn, past president of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (the ABFDE, here). Here is the AFBDE's definition of "scientific":
Forensic science is the application of various sciences to the law. The application of allied sciences and analytical techniques to questions concerning documents is termed forensic document examination. The examination of questioned documents consists of the analysis and comparison of questioned handwriting, hand printing, typewriting, commercial printing, photocopies, papers, inks, and other documentary evidence with known material in order to establish the authenticity of the contested material as well as the detection of alterations.
The science of document examination, then, consists in the analysis of actual documents, not physical copies. So it appears that Flynn, too, violated the code of ethics of his professional association:
h. A diplomate or candidate of the ABFDE will only render opinions which are within his/her area of expertise, and will act, at all times, in a completely impartial manner by employing scientific methodology to reach logical and unbiased conclusions.
(via Here)
Again, rendering an opinion on the authenticity of a physical object by examining a digital copy of it is hardly scientific.
Very odd that these "experts" are so willing to offer unqualified judgments. Eh?
