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 email@example.com. Thanks.
The more I think about it, the more I would be looking for some connection to that old woman. She may not have a clue about the forgeries, but that does not mean she was not the source of the storyline...even inadvertently.
Killian's secretary would know what memos should look like. She would not have made some of the mistakes that were made here.
If you read Charleston1's posting the other day(see the link on post 18), the interesting thing he pointed out is that when you compare the USA documents to the CBS documents, is the CBS ones are ammended by certain passages being underlined in pen, that aren't on the USA documents, meaning that someone(dnc? cbs?) has tampered with them to give certain sentences emphasis, or, that CBS received their documents after USA received theirs.
That was completely unnecessary and hateful.
That is in line with what I've thought, too - albeit IMO CBS may have gotten theirs' first & USA Today later. If USA Today already had theirs' then it might indicate they knew they'd get burned and simply put them up with their other stories when they did. In any event, I always assumed USA Today got them independent of CBS and - until now - thought CBS may have only gotten 4 of the 6 docs while USA Today got the whole bundle. What poster here has revealed, however, is that CBS got the other two as well but never disclosed that fact nor did they let the fact they knew - for certain, they've inadvertently indicted themselves, again - because they didn't put forth those two while revealing the other four as if they were legit (knowing some if not all were totally suspect)
I explained in later posts that I do not mean to suggest she put these memos out. I don't think she knew anything about the forgeries, but I do think she originated some of the stories and someone else took it from there. JMO
Looks like you've been vindicated!!
It's like everything else. If you didn't see it happen or get it from someone you KNOW you can trust, take it all with a grain of salt. Damn, I hate liars. It doesn't do much for our faith in human nature when we see the extremes people will go to just to push their agenda. Common cheap trash.
Looked like breaking news to me. But then, what do I know. I just glad I found the post. It was a darn nice read.
But that's my point. If looking at the same document and CBS's has a few sentences underlined and USA's doesn't, it means CBS either received theirs later or else underlined in ink themselves.
I agree with you.
The way things are going with all the sites that do not want FR to post even excerpts of their stories, this will indeed become what we consider breaking news - FReeper summaries of stories.
As this summary goes, that FReeper did a good job.
I agree, to a point . . .
I think "vanities" can sometimes be very usefull, but it would be great if they were somehow flagged. I personally read the latest posts page (mostly to see what is "hot"). It is almost impossible to know beforehand whether a post is "linked" information or a vanity.
Maybe a heading in the title??
VANITY: Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud
just my two cents . . .
BTW - I think the poster has down so good work on this and is apparently new - I too vote for the "cut some slack".
I can't figure out the html tags for a bitmap. I put the first image on my website: www.challengerdisaster.info. Can anyone private e-mail on how to get the pics here instead?
Good! Thanks. :)
I concur & why it was also feasible that CBS didn't get two documents that USA Today did - but now we know they got at least one of those extra two that USA Today did, too :)
Replace the ( with < and the ) with > below.
(img src="url here")
I'm rather impressed with how "hard" ABCNews has been on this CBS snafu.
I recently checked the cretae and modification dates of the PDF's at CBS and USA Today.
CBS's documents were created 8/9/2004 at around 9:00 PM
USA Today's were created on 9/9/2004 at around 1:00 PM and were MODIFIED on 9/11/2004.
Also of note is that the CBS Documents have a page size of 13 x 18 (approximate as the vary slightly) and the USA todays have a size of 8.31 x 10.33)