Skip to comments.Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud
Posted on 09/14/2004 9:43:28 PM PDT by charleston1
I don't normally watch the ABC World News Tonight, but after a tip from someone a time zone ahead of me, I decided to watch and videotape their news tonight. I am glad I did. As described on several other threads, ABC News took their gloves off and gave CBS News/60 Minutes a good hard public flogging. In an article entitled "Casting Further Doubt," ABC News left no doubt that the CBS Evening News has perpetrated a clear case of fraud on its listening audience. The written article is located here.
In the article, ABC news systematically dismantled what was likely to have been Dan Rather's Swan Song. Instead, it will undoubtedly be the story that drowned his career, a career I used to respect years ago. I still fondly remember the Dan Rather that went to Afghanistan to report on the Mujadin. Wow, how far he has fallen since hiking through the mountains of Afghanistan. Whether ABC knows it or not, they went one step further than their story suggests. That is, they exposed malice and fraud by CBS News/60 Minutes. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I videotaped the news article. I stood there stunned as I watched the interview by Brian Ross with Emily Will and I have reviewed it several times. Was I seeing things? Yes I was! There in black and white was Ms. Will going over the one document CBS News gave to here to presumably authenticate. Brian Ross stated:
Emily Will, a court certified examiner from North Carolina, says she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check in the days before the broadcast.
Ms. Will said: "I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter."
On camera, Ms. Will goes over an enlarged display copy of the document she examined. Therein is the problem and the answer to the question of whether CBS News was honestly just reporting the facts. Unless Ms. Will is lying, CBS News/60 Minutes gave her a document that CBS has never publicly admitted that they had in their possession. Ms. Will carefully reviewed the alleged signature of Jerry B. Killian on the June 24th, 1973 letter addressed to Sir. I first found this same document on the USA Today website as one of six (not four as reported by CBS) alleged Killian documents which I first shared here on September 11th: search under "Killian" for the "Two more 'Killian' Documents" thread. Since CBS News did not make the June 24, 1973 document available at their website as part of their original story, the question for me ever since has been why? As it turns out in perfect hindsight, CBS has made significant efforts to lead the public to believe that they only had four documents. Just go back and watch the 60 Minutes II, interview again or go see the four documents on their website today. Why only four CBS documents? Recall that Marcel Matley, the respected signature expert used for the 60 Minutes II, interview to support the authenticity of the alleged Killian documents, was also only given one document to examine. Mr. Matley was given the 04 May 1972 document in which Lieutenant Colonel Killian allegedly ordered then Lieutenant Bush to report for his annual physical not later than May 14, 1972. This is a case of authentication shopping!!! It is also fraudulent and it was clearly done with malice as there is no other reason to restrict an honest authentication expert from seeing all of the evidence unless you already know the answer you want to hear. If anyone was duped, it would appear to be the documents experts themselves and an unsuspecting TV audience. Obviously, CBS should have shared all of their documents with all of their experts. It would appear that the truth they were looking for is frustratedly hard to find and harder to accepta truth which exists in the minds of the investigators but not in their fictitious documents. In the end CBS News chose to use for its broadcast, the one signature that looked most authentic when compared to other known signatures of the late Colonel Killian. CBS News cast aside the document Ms. Will told them was not authentic. Of course, it is possible that Ms. Will was using the June 24, 1973, document as a prop provided by ABC, but I don't think so. I think Ms. Will did examine document number five of six (chronologically speaking). If not where did she get it, ABC News? Oh, and Bloggers, its firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks.
And I am surprised by how little USA Today has to say on the matter. Something is not quite right with this.
The date just means when they were scanned, right? Does modification mean something was changed?
they blew them up?
I would assume the create date is the date that the doc's were scanned, but technically, it is that date that the scanned images were "imported" and the PDF file created.
Modified does mean exactly that. But it COULD mean that:
1. A page was added
2. A page was deleted
3. the images IN the PDF were changed
I'm not sure WHAT they did, but the sizes can easily be seen by downloading the PDFs and opening them with Acrobat (NOT via the browser) - then with Ctrl-D (or File>Document Properties>summary)
those were post times - not necessarily when they got them(why did USA Today need to "modify" ?)
That is the document with only the two line header. CBS was told it was a fraud. The other two with headers had three line headers. All the headers line up together EXACTLY at the pixel level. The exclusion of that document by CBS demonstrates conclusively IMO that they had to know the others were likely frauds as well, even if they didn't have those authenticated (and it appears they didn't, because they knew what the answer would be)
Or what about enlarged?...Enlarging makes 'em fuzzier and look older, although they may do that so they can post them on a board during editorial meetings.
For those Freepers on Slow Connections, it is sometimes wise, when posting LARGE images to expand on the (IMG) tag as follows:
title="" alt="" style="width: 500px; height: 333px;")
The important part is the width and height aspects - these tell the browser what to expect and, by reducing them from, in your case 720 x 480, it takes less time to load.
Are you using Netscape to browse??
Can't say for certain.
The CBS Doc's are larger and were created on the 8th of September (could be a default setting in Adobe which caused the larger page size . . .) Also, if you lool closely at the right margin / bottom margin of the CBS doc's - you will see "white space" which would tend to be the lid of the scanner instead of the paper - maybe they didn't crop the images??
The USA Today document(s) were created on the 9th and the page size conforms closely to what you would expect. Notice - no white space!! BUT for some reason, the PDF file was modified on the 11th - impossible to say why.
If looked into the "source code" of the PDF's, but can find no information concerning what was modified.
Questions that need to be asked of CBS/USA TODAY:
1. How many documents to each of you exactly have? 4 and 6?
or 15 and 20?
2. How many experts did you consult? Any more than the ones we know about?
open to suggestions on other questions you have.
The CBS memos seem so much clearer.
Here are the USA Today memos - CBS Memo #5 just happens to be #5 in the USA Today sequence.
CBS knew what they had was a fraud and they put it out. Nothing new here, just fortunate that Dan Rather and MSM types think the average FReeper is a pajama wearing idiot. Heck I don't even wear pajamas when I FReep ... ok, scratch that ROFLMAO.
Seriously, Rather probably doesn't even do his own word processing. He doesn't know or understand the internet. He didn't see what's so obvious to everybody else ... it appears he & Mapes just knew that the story was falling apart on them so they ran with it (covering up what they could & hiding the rest - as their last remaining "witnesses" are Bush haters and not very credible in the least) and it blew up in their face.
Yes, the CBS docs are indeed better images because USA Today downgraded the quality of theirs on the 11th sometime after that first thread. They got hit pretty hard apparently. The old file was 484K and the new one is about 87K, IIRC. Anyway, the better 484K doc is on my website:
Go download it before I hit my limit.
Well, I have a coupla more, seeing as how Dan has gone underground.
3. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with your daughter on this story?
4. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at the DNC, or the Texas Democratic Party, or any other democrat on this story?
5. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at moveon.org for this story?
6. Mr. Rather, did you or any of you staff consult with anyone at Texans for Truth for this story?
7. Mr. Rather, did you or any of your staff consult with anyone at USA TODAY or the BOSTON GLOBE for this story?
"Breaking News" means...
Where does it say that? Please explain that to us who are not so familiar with your terms!
I have added the ABC World News Tonight video here:
I apologize for the quality. A family member was using the VCR. I taped it off the TV screen. Arggh but is better than having nothing at all.
I love it when freepers score! Anybody working at the old major media tonight? Send them the thread for a byline...
great work-you might want to pass it around, check this article :
WHAT A COUP!
It absolutely proves that CBS was warned ahead time they were frauds, had all 6 memos and buried two most suspicious before the story.... MALICE.
Thanks all. I just got the higher quality video up for any additional screen captures anyone wants to make. The file is 26 MB. Don't forget to right click and "Save Target As". It will go of my site probably tomorrow unless it has another good home. My hope is someone else has much better copy.
And your point is -very- relevant to mine... put your point together with mine, and the Smoking Gun evidence is -complete-.
At least he isn't bellyaching about Bush!
Rather was a bureau chief in Viet Nam and he continually lied to insure that good men died. He spiked every positive story and made certain that America would only see Viet Nam the way he wanted them to see it!
When you thing of the word "Traitor", visualize Ran Rather!
This qualifies as BREAKING NEWS, IMHO.
And a heck of a lot more than that. If it can be shown that CBS shopped the authentication and rejected documents shown to be forgeries while airing documents with all the same flaws, then they can be shown to be acting with malice. This is the critical legal distinction when it comes to libel. This is the critical distinction that will remove their legal protection when they are investigated for fraud. If malice can be proven, they will have to reveal sources and tell the investigator where the documents came from.
This is HUGH.
Here are 2 posts I put on another thread, which may fit into yours
Iwonder if Kerry thought the Swiftee's devestating blow would come during the weekend timed with the rally of Viet Nam Vets Against Kerry. That would explain dusting of the AWOL charges yet once again of the CBS 60 Minutes piece. Why would Dan Rather go public with a story filled with so many holes? Scum or not, he is not stupid.
Two things have bothered me since the CBS story broke wide open.
One report has the documents in the possession of the dems for at least 6 weeks. That was the time Kerry staked his whole future on his Swift Boat tour. I suspect they had those ready to go if Bush or someone from the RNC attacked Kerry's record as factually false.
But the President did not bite. He did what people like Kerry hate. By being gracious and praising Kerry's service, he denied Kerry an avenue of attack.
Mr Killian's son said that the producer from Dallas called him about 2 weeks ago asking if the family had these documents. She stated she heard they exsisted and was looking for them.
I can't help but think there is a signifigance between the 6 weeks and 2 weeks, but cannot figure it out.
I guess I am wondering how long CBS had the documents in their possession. For discussion's sake let's say the DNC "received" those documents at any point of time in the 6 week 2 week time frame. Let's say 4 weeks.
6 weeks ago DNC received memos
4 weeks ago gave them to CBS (my random date)
2 weeks ago the producer contacts the Gillian family looking for memos. She "heard the exsisted.
IF it is true the DNC had the docs & gave them to CBS--what would be the significance for the producer to contact the Gillian family?
Because they knew they were fake or because they were copies a firestorm would (and did break out).
[Maybe the DNC did not give the documents to CBS, but the possibility exsists of some form of collusion between Rather and Kerry as far as the story goes.]
So, if the above speculation is close to the truth, then this question begs an answer. Why would Dan Rather run with a story which had (at best) flimsy evidence to back it up?
Timing--If there is a connection between Kerry and Rather, memos aside, Kerry may have said (thru nuance or even directly) This story has to be out now. All of the sudden the AWOL story was being thrown around again. The new ad was in the can. Maybe they were saving it for October, but for some reason (dropping poll numbers or anticipated Swiftee surprise) they had to get it out now to stop the momentum which Bush has gained and Kerry has lost.
I've said this before:
Dan Rather is steadfastly holding his ground because he is knowingly part of a conspiracy to influence the 2004 US Presidential election. Who he is working with is yet unknown, reasonable suspects would include Carville, Begala, McAuliffe, and others inside the kerry campaign.
'For Rathergate Buffs (and face it, we're all consumed)
A Freeper figures it out. Ignore thread, they yell at
each other over there'
(link from Lucianne's "must reads")
is castration required to post over there?
I remember when she peeled off out of here and tried to take as many as she could with her.
Her 'must reads' save time, but our threads ROCK!
Thanks for your thread. I would have missed your analysis if it was bured in a thread of 300 replies.
I was unaware that there were 6 docs. As you say only 4 were presented on the 60 minutes show.
On Brit's show yesterday, he revealed the "credentials" of Marcel Matley. There are none. He has had no formal training in signature analysis. Apparantly he is self taught, beginning his career with the signature analyses of women, so he could discover different traits of women based on their signatures. Sort of like divining the future in a crystal ball, or palm reading. LOL
Yep. Meets the clear to most juries "reckless disregard" standard, imo.
This is the best personal post (vanity does not fit in this case, nothing vain about it) I've ever read on FR. Powerful. Thanks for your analysis.
When news breaks, we fix it! -- CBS
For Rathergate Buffs (and face it, we're all consumed) A Freeper figures it out. Ignore thread, they yell at each other over there. http://www.lucianne.com/
"When news breaks, we fix it! -- CBS"
LMAO--more please til it hurts.
"cut to the chase, charleston1! You should send this to Powerline as an email. They might miss it here. And while you're at it, send it to Brian Ross at ABC as well."
My apologies. I may have slept a weak two hours last night and therefore have just been insensitive. Sorry. Anyway, I just e-mailed Powerline.blog and ABC.
Okay, I stand corrected. I do recall though that the Mod recomended this for performance. I don't know if that is true though. I have broadband so I can hardly tell the difference.