“Would it be accurate to say that a forgery is proven to be such, by comparing the document to a real one.(?)
“Not by trying to show, for example, that the parents are not the baby’s real parents?”
A document entered into evidence can be challenged a number of ways. No certified copy of the LFBC has EVER been entered into evidence in court, state or federal. Only photocopies of the claimed certified copy, which is not the same thing.
Zullo’s CCP presser attempting to show prima facie (on its face) evidence of forgery of the LFBC image was supporessed in the MSM with hand-waiving by “experts” claiming that they saw no evidence of forgery and could explain all the anomalies away.
Compare this episode with Dan Rather’s attempt to crush Bush’s 2004 campaign with a claimed National Guard document. Dan Rather got fired and Bush survived because the MSM (and eventually the courts) and even the Dems decided not to suppress the evidence that MS Word software was used in generating a document pre-dated MS Word.
Proving that Barry’s LFBC is forged, as the CCP appears to be prepared to re-litigate in the media and hopefully in the courts, does NOT refute the extensive evidence that Stanley Ann is Barry’s mom. That is totally separate.
OK what I meant was ask if the following was accurate:
one doesn’t prove a forgery by proving the parents aren’t the real parents.
They prove a forgery by comparing the doc in question to a real doc.
I.e. finding who the real parents are is secondary (and not relevant in a criminal case about forgery )