Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963

[Greg Doudna]

16 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I wouldn't consider a candidate that offers a "discount."

Find and fund a top notch ink analyst the equivalent of Valery Aginsky; otherwise, please don't waste your time. 

https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2012/11/zuckerbergdismissalmotion.pdf

What funding range are you able to do for an ink dating alone assuming a qualified reputable examiner, that would not require external funding? 

[Greg Doudna]

19 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna

I invite you to secure a quote from a pen and ink analyst for this project.

So far, the second attempt at authentication is teetering at $21,000, sans Ink and paper analysis because our examiner accepts that Valery Aginsky indicated to those who paid him that he didn't have a problem that the ink and pen were available in 1963.  

The initial effort in London, which included travel, documentary teams and equipment, etc. as well as the handwriting expert and the ink analyst was running at $100,000 when Hank passed away. The NDAs they secured from the contract examiners remains in place.

Let me know if you have any inclination to raise funds to complete the ink analysis with Mr. Aginsky - providing he will come out of retirement and is permitted to resume the project with someone other than those he is under an NDA; or perhaps you might organize the launch of a new quick turn-around ink analysis as you suggest? Start from scratch?  As the custodian of the datebook, I would consider a proposal from you.

 

Why does the phrase, put your money where your mouth is, come to mind? In all candor, I wouldn't recommend you go to this expense when we already have a prelim guarantee that the ink and pen are compatible with 1963, and I have a written statement form Sweet Life Foods Distributors which printed the blank datebooks for their Christmas gifts, 1962 — chef Pierre Lafitte/Jean Martin being among the recipients.

Could you be specific on exact wording of a statement said by who that you understand to be a “prelim guarantee that the ink and pen are compatible with 1963”? 

This is important. Please be as specific as possible. 

Have you disclosed this before? I don’t recall you saying before that there was a “prelim guarantee” or finding by a forensic examiner that the ink had been found compatible with 1963.

But it is important now if you have that and can disclose specifics. 

And that prelim guarantee is of sufficient weight and credibility that upon being told of it your current examiner agreed and advised no ink analysis or dating was recommended or necessary for the Lafitte datebook’s authentication, and you have undertaken or been quoted $21,000 for authentication analysis from your examiner but NOT including ink dating, based on reliance upon the “prelim guarantee” told the examiner from Aginsky who was told that by someone else? Is that the way it went that $21,000 spent by you or quoted to you, whichever it is, on forensic authentication has not included or will not include dating the ink?

Edited August 19, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Leslie Sharp]

20 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Could you be specific on exact wording of a statement said by who that you understand to be a “prelim guarantee that the ink and pen are compatible with 1963”? 

This is important. Please be as specific as possible. 

Have you disclosed this before? I don’t recall you saying before that there was a “prelim guarantee” or finding by a forensic examiner that the ink had been found compatible with 1963.

But it is important now if you have that and can disclose specifics. 

And that prelim guarantee is of sufficient weight and credibility that upon being told of it your current examiner agreed and advised no ink analysis or dating was recommended or necessary for the Lafitte datebook’s authentication, and you have undertaken or been quoted $21,000 for authentication analysis from your examiner but NOT including ink dating, based on reliance upon the “prelim guarantee” told the examiner from Aginsky who was told that by someone else? Is that the way it went that $21,000 spent by you or quoted to you, whichever it is, on forensic authentication has not included or will not include dating the ink?

I wish that you had been following my responses long before now. With the exception of a dollar figure, I believe I've addressed your concerns.

After you've reviewed my "specific" remarks on this thread, "specific" to the question of datebook authentication, you're welcome to rephrase your questions.



 

[Leslie Sharp]

22 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

What funding range are you able to do for an ink dating alone assuming a qualified reputable examiner, that would not require external funding? 

I'm under no obligation to discuss this with you, Greg.  You offered to fundraise - or more accurately, you suggested someone else fundraise, not you - and I established the parameters. Valery Aginsky is considered among the top of his field so I would expect your candidate to be comparable.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I'm under no obligation to discuss this with you, Greg.  You offered to fundraise - or more accurately, you suggested someone else fundraise, not you - and I established the parameters. Valery Aginsky is considered among the top of his field so I would expect your candidate to be comparable.

Ok, but just to be clear I am doing you the favor here, not vice versa. I intend to try to make contact with Aginsky’s office tomorrow and request advice and perhaps contact referrals. I have said and I repeat that under no circumstances will I become responsible for payment or fundraising. That is not my problem or responsibility. 

However it is possible—MAYBE—that if a top-rate examiner, credentialed and referred by Aginsky—could be found, I could ask, and maybe, just maybe, obtain, an offer to do so for research purposes with an intention of a scientific publication, to which of course you would be invited to be on as coauthor with the scientists and I assume me. That will be my attempt or ask, of contacts vetted and recommended by Aginsky or his office and that otherwise are credentialed and experienced. 

I will assure them up front that their all parties concerned are committed to knowing the truth of the findings whatever they may be, and that there will be no non-disclosure agreement or control over their disclosure or discussion of their findings after the fact, with the possible exception of a reasonable (e.g. 90 days) embargo period on public discussion or announcement after the lab and expert examination is concluded for the purpose of allowing you the exclusive opportunity to make first announcement, if you so wish.

I must be assured you are serious about a serious offer, if such can be obtained. I will not risk insulting you by asking for that assurance explicitly but will assume it unless advised by you otherwise. 

if it is not possible to obtain a gratis research-purpose analysis, I will forward to you what I can obtain in terms of costs and in the best case see if it is within your means at your end. I am assuming you will not be imposing non-disclosure restrictions on the results after the fact as a condition of payment or making the physical datebook available. 

[Leslie Sharp]

17 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ok, but just to be clear I am doing you the favor here, not vice versa. I intend to try to make contact with Aginsky’s office tomorrow and request advice and perhaps contact referrals. I have said and I repeat that under no circumstances will I become responsible for payment or fundraising. That is not my problem or responsibility. 

However it is possible—MAYBE—that if a top-rate examiner, credentialed and referred by Aginsky—could be found, I could ask, and maybe, just maybe, obtain, an offer to do so for research purposes with an intention of a scientific publication, to which of course you would be invited to be on as coauthor with the scientists and I assume me. That will be my attempt or ask, of contacts vetted and recommended by Aginsky or his office and that otherwise are credentialed and experienced. 

I will assure them up front that their all parties concerned are committed to knowing the truth of the findings whatever they may be, and that there will be no non-disclosure agreement or control over their disclosure or discussion of their findings after the fact, with the possible exception of a reasonable (e.g. 90 days) embargo period on public discussion or announcement after the lab and expert examination is concluded for the purpose of allowing you the exclusive opportunity to make first announcement, if you so wish.

I must be assured you are serious about a serious offer, if such can be obtained. I will not risk insulting you by asking for that assurance explicitly but will assume it unless advised by you otherwise. 

if it is not possible to obtain a gratis research-purpose analysis, I will forward to you what I can obtain in terms of costs and in the best case see if it is within your means at your end. I am assuming you will not be imposing non-disclosure restrictions on the results after the fact as a condition of payment or making the physical datebook available. 

I'll study this carefully and revert back to you.

Your interest is appreciated, and it's a relief that you have finally approached the question of authenticity in a professional manner.

[Paul Brancato]

Reading with interest and appreciation for both your efforts. 

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Reading with interest and appreciation for both your efforts. 

And thank you for your continued interest, Paul.

[Leslie Sharp]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ok, but just to be clear I am doing you the favor here, not vice versa. I intend to try to make contact with Aginsky’s office tomorrow and request advice and perhaps contact referrals. I have said and I repeat that under no circumstances will I become responsible for payment or fundraising. That is not my problem or responsibility. 

However it is possible—MAYBE—that if a top-rate examiner, credentialed and referred by Aginsky—could be found, I could ask, and maybe, just maybe, obtain, an offer to do so for research purposes with an intention of a scientific publication, to which of course you would be invited to be on as coauthor with the scientists and I assume me. That will be my attempt or ask, of contacts vetted and recommended by Aginsky or his office and that otherwise are credentialed and experienced. 

I will assure them up front that their all parties concerned are committed to knowing the truth of the findings whatever they may be, and that there will be no non-disclosure agreement or control over their disclosure or discussion of their findings after the fact, with the possible exception of a reasonable (e.g. 90 days) embargo period on public discussion or announcement after the lab and expert examination is concluded for the purpose of allowing you the exclusive opportunity to make first announcement, if you so wish.

I must be assured you are serious about a serious offer, if such can be obtained. I will not risk insulting you by asking for that assurance explicitly but will assume it unless advised by you otherwise. 

if it is not possible to obtain a gratis research-purpose analysis, I will forward to you what I can obtain in terms of costs and in the best case see if it is within your means at your end. I am assuming you will not be imposing non-disclosure restrictions on the results after the fact as a condition of payment or making the physical datebook available. 

Ok, but just to be clear I am doing you the favor here, not vice versa. I intend to try to make contact with Aginsky’s office tomorrow and request advice and perhaps contact referrals. I have said and I repeat that under no circumstances will I become responsible for payment or fundraising. That is not my problem or responsibility. 

With respect, and not to be contentious, but I’m curious: if it is not your problem or your responsibility why have you interjected yourself into the dynamic?

 

However it is possible—MAYBE—that if a top-rate examiner, credentialed and referred by Aginsky—could be found, I could ask, and maybe, just maybe, obtain, an offer to do so for research purposes with an intention of a scientific publication . . . 

If the ink and pen are, as you indicate here, being analyzed for research purposes only, with the intention of a scientific publication, I would insist on parameters related to which — if any — specific entries from the datebook could be incorporated in an article meant for scientific publication. 

I would expect to exercise editorial control over any references to Hank’s story regarding the history of the datebook and his access. I would be identified as joint-work copyright holder of Coup in Dallas: The Decisive Investigation into Who Killed JFK with H. P. Albarelli Jr., including all ancillary projects. 

The lab and expert examiners will agree to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement applicable to the information found in the 1963 datebook maintained by Pierre Lafitte.

You would also agree to the Non-Disclosure specific to the details contained in the datebook that are no yet in the public domain; you would not publish anything you learn during this exercise, including preliminary reactions/comments made by the experts, without prior agreement with me.

to which of course you would be invited to be on as coauthor with the scientists and I assume me. That will be my attempt or ask, of contacts vetted and recommended by Aginsky or his office and that otherwise are credentialed and experienced. 

 

I appreciate the time you may expend, but the document examiners currently under agreement to analyze the handwriting in the db obviously have contacts in the field. Based on the third-party assurance I have that Valery Aginsky was in the process of producing a final sufficiently positive report when the documentary project was interrupted by Hank’s untimely passing, the lead examiner has recommended I not go to the expense of another paper/ink analysis. 

 

I will assure them up front that their all parties concerned are committed to knowing the truth of the findings whatever they may be, . . . 

That should go without saying. It is also my prerogative to first exercise due diligence to determine the objectivity of your candidate before analysis is initiated.

and that there will be no non-disclosure agreement or control over their disclosure or discussion of their findings after the fact . . . 

The Non-Disclosure Agreement will cover the content of the datebook; I wouldn’t expect a non-disclosure agreement for the findings, providing the conditions established in the next paragraph are agreed to.  
 

. . . with the possible exception of a reasonable (e.g. 90 days) embargo period on public discussion or announcement after the lab and expert examination is concluded for the purpose of allowing you the exclusive opportunity to make first announcement, if you so wish.

I will make the announcement, and I would also be open to a joint statement if the experts so wish.

Yes, a 90-day embargo is acceptable and provides sufficient time for a second opinion if, after reading the report, I exercise the option.  

 

I must be assured you are serious about a serious offer, if such can be obtained. I will not risk insulting you by asking for that assurance explicitly but will assume it unless advised by you otherwise. 

Thank you.

if it is not possible to obtain a gratis research-purpose analysis, I will forward to you what I can obtain in terms of costs and in the best case see if it is within your means at your end.

 

That wouldn’t be necessary.

 I am assuming you will not be imposing non-disclosure restrictions on the results after the fact as a condition of payment or making the physical datebook available.

To repeat, the lab and expert examiners will agree to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement applicable to the information found in the datebook, not the results of their findings, with the understanding the results will not be revealed for 90-days; I will announce the results. 

I will not be funding the effort for reasons previously stated; and, if you are not funding the project, it wouldn’t be your place to determine conditions of payment either.

The logistics of the analysis will need to be worked out; I will not be releasing the datebook, so arrangements would need to be made for a speedy turnaround.

The aforementioned does not constitute a legally binding agreement; it is intended primarily to establish the spirit behind the effort. If your attempts in the near future are successful, we can enter into a more formal written agreement with the concerned parties.   

[Greg Doudna]

Based on the third-party assurance I have that Valery Aginsky was in the process of producing a final sufficiently positive report when the documentary project was interrupted by Hank’s untimely passing, the lead examiner has recommended I not go to the expense of another paper/ink analysis.

Do you have any objection if I ask Aginsky to discuss his knowledge of the findings of that first ink analysis with me, and do you personally have any objection to Aginsky discussing that with me, and providing a written report to me of that if he has one?

[Greg Doudna]

 

I appreciate the time you may expend, but the document examiners currently under agreement to analyze the handwriting in the db obviously have contacts in the field. Based on the third-party assurance I have that Valery Aginsky was in the process of producing a final sufficiently positive report when the documentary project was interrupted by Hank’s untimely passing, the lead examiner has recommended I not go to the expense of another paper/ink analysis. 

~ ~ ~

I will not be funding the effort for reasons previously stated

~ ~ ~

The logistics of the analysis will need to be worked out; I will not be releasing the datebook, so arrangements would need to be made for a speedy turnaround.

 

Before making any calls, I would like to discuss with you by email (mine is gdoudna "at" msn.com) this: since you say there has already been an ink analysis done years ago that nobody can see and are citing that as a reason for unwillingness to pay any costs for a second analysis, would you be open to permitting me to make contact with the film producer who paid for and possesses the findings of that first analysis, so that I may, with your support, attempt to persuade them to participate in a publication of those findings in the interests of science? Perhaps I may be able to succeed where you have reported past communication breakdown and inability to accomplish that access. 

It would obviously be a lot easier for me to persuade someone sitting on an expensive existing analysis already paid for and done to cooperate in a scientific publication of that which has already been done, than for me to start from scratch to try to obtain for you an offer of a new forensic examination done on advance condition set by you of unwillingness to consider paying anything for it. 

I regard this as an offer to help you and those interested in the Lafitte datebook, but if you regard this as interjection and unwelcome I am happy not to proceed if not wanted.  

[Greg Doudna]

Leslie, I tried to send you this private message this morning, but when I finished it and hit the "send" button, received an automated Education Forum message saying "Leslie Sharp cannot receive messages".

Here it is:

Hi Leslie-- I earlier tried but could not find a method (did not see a button) for private messaging you checking from my phone yesterday on the road (and did not know an email for you), but this morning found the "message" button for you via the Education Forum on my computer at home. I am happy to keep exchanges public if you prefer but thought offlist might be better for some details.

I know you have expressed frustration in the past at attempting to access the first ink analysis that was done--and if I remember right I recall somewhere a mention of something like ca. 40 needle puncture samples was mentioned, which sounds like a serious analysis--and that the ones who paid for that analysis, a film producer, who had it done, had locked up everyone involved with NDA's such that you yourself could not access the findings of that despite efforts.

Would it be possible for you to give me information of who that party is and how to contact them and let me have a polite, respectful try at asking them to allow access to that ink analysis to you and me for purpose of publication, with your support for that request able to be cited in that request?

It may not work, but before going to a lot of effort to try to obtain a new one, if possible would you support me in at least making that attempt to access the first one? It would be better to know (and be able to inform any new examiners) what has already been done. If the effort failed (i.e. the film maker or whoever the controlling party is refuses), so be it but it would be worth one last try? I cannot imagine how it would damage any commercial interest in a film yet to be produced, if the filmmakers perchance still have that on the table as an interest or possibility. If anything, a scientific publication of the ink analysis, which if the hearsay reports are accurate that you say you have received saying that it was favorable to authenticity--would assist in exposure and interest in a datebook project film. I could at least ask. I have some experience in making this kind of ask and receiving favorable responses in my field in the past. 

I just know that if I were to begin making inquiries for a fresh ink analysis offer (I have not begun) I would be asked by any examiner/lab, has there been work done on this before and could I tell the history of it, and I would be running "blind" so to speak. And in the best case it is possible that first ink analysis might be high-quality and become published, getting that in print instead of the oral hearsay/secretive nature of hearsay-rumors status of those findings at present. 

Greg D. 

[Leslie Sharp]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Leslie, I tried to send you this private message this morning, but when I finished it and hit the "send" button, received an automated Education Forum message saying "Leslie Sharp cannot receive messages".

Here it is:

Hi Leslie-- I earlier tried but could not find a method (did not see a button) for private messaging you checking from my phone yesterday on the road (and did not know an email for you), but this morning found the "message" button for you via the Education Forum on my computer at home. I am happy to keep exchanges public if you prefer but thought offlist might be better for some details.

I know you have expressed frustration in the past at attempting to access the first ink analysis that was done--and if I remember right I recall somewhere a mention of something like ca. 40 needle puncture samples was mentioned, which sounds like a serious analysis--and that the ones who paid for that analysis, a film producer, who had it done, had locked up everyone involved with NDA's such that you yourself could not access the findings of that despite efforts.

Would it be possible for you to give me information of who that party is and how to contact them and let me have a polite, respectful try at asking them to allow access to that ink analysis to you and me for purpose of publication, with your support for that request able to be cited in that request?

It may not work, but before going to a lot of effort to try to obtain a new one, if possible would you support me in at least making that attempt to access the first one? It would be better to know (and be able to inform any new examiners) what has already been done. If the effort failed (i.e. the film maker or whoever the controlling party is refuses), so be it but it would be worth one last try? I cannot imagine how it would damage any commercial interest in a film yet to be produced, if the filmmakers perchance still have that on the table as an interest or possibility. If anything, a scientific publication of the ink analysis, which if the hearsay reports are accurate that you say you have received saying that it was favorable to authenticity--would assist in exposure and interest in a datebook project film. I could at least ask. I have some experience in making this kind of ask and receiving favorable responses in my field in the past. 

I just know that if I were to begin making inquiries for a fresh ink analysis offer (I have not begun) I would be asked by any examiner/lab, has there been work done on this before and could I tell the history of it, and I would be running "blind" so to speak. And in the best case it is possible that first ink analysis might be high-quality and become published, getting that in print instead of the oral hearsay/secretive nature of hearsay-rumors status of those findings at present. 

Greg D. 

Would it be possible for you to give me information of who that party is and how to contact them and let me have a polite, respectful try at asking them to allow access to that ink analysis to you and me for purpose of publication, with your support for that request able to be cited in that request?

@Greg DoudnaRespectfully, no.

I've laid out the terms and conditions previously, so I don't understand why you are introducing further questions and complications. 

To reiterate, once again, the request has been made more than once by parties with legal standing, and declined.  You do not have legal standing, nor do you have my blessing to make such a request. I prefer that you not interject yourself any further in the dynamic or misrepresent yourself to Valery Aginsky as having anything other than a general concern about authenticity of the datebook. To be clear, you are not "acting on my behalf." 

 You are of course entitled to pursue the offer you made earlier, which was to contact Mr. Aginsky via the website. I've walked you through the specifics sufficient to ask him to recommend another examiner of his calibre. 

There is no "secretive" nature; the professionals involved have thus far adhered to the Non-Disclosure Agreements they signed. While I'm frustrated, I believe that ship has sailed which is why we launched another examination.
 

I've been as transparent as I intend to be. I look forward to hearing of any progress you might make in pursuit of another ink analyst, and the terms and conditions laid out previously still apply.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

On 8/20/2023 at 10:20 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Based on the third-party assurance I have that Valery Aginsky was in the process of producing a final sufficiently positive report when the documentary project was interrupted by Hank’s untimely passing, the lead examiner has recommended I not go to the expense of another paper/ink analysis.

Do you have any objection if I ask Aginsky to discuss his knowledge of the findings of that first ink analysis with me, and do you personally have any objection to Aginsky discussing that with me, and providing a written report to me of that if he has one?

@Greg Doudna Of course I would object to Aginsky discussing his knowledge with you, and not with the parties who have legal standing.  Should he choose that avenue, he should also be aware there would be repercussions. 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

On 8/21/2023 at 8:41 AM, Greg Doudna said:

 

I appreciate the time you may expend, but the document examiners currently under agreement to analyze the handwriting in the db obviously have contacts in the field. Based on the third-party assurance I have that Valery Aginsky was in the process of producing a final sufficiently positive report when the documentary project was interrupted by Hank’s untimely passing, the lead examiner has recommended I not go to the expense of another paper/ink analysis. 

~ ~ ~

I will not be funding the effort for reasons previously stated

~ ~ ~

The logistics of the analysis will need to be worked out; I will not be releasing the datebook, so arrangements would need to be made for a speedy turnaround.

 

Before making any calls, I would like to discuss with you by email (mine is gdoudna "at" msn.com) this: since you say there has already been an ink analysis done years ago that nobody can see and are citing that as a reason for unwillingness to pay any costs for a second analysis, would you be open to permitting me to make contact with the film producer who paid for and possesses the findings of that first analysis, so that I may, with your support, attempt to persuade them to participate in a publication of those findings in the interests of science? Perhaps I may be able to succeed where you have reported past communication breakdown and inability to accomplish that access. 

It would obviously be a lot easier for me to persuade someone sitting on an expensive existing analysis already paid for and done to cooperate in a scientific publication of that which has already been done, than for me to start from scratch to try to obtain for you an offer of a new forensic examination done on advance condition set by you of unwillingness to consider paying anything for it. 

I regard this as an offer to help you and those interested in the Lafitte datebook, but if you regard this as interjection and unwelcome I am happy not to proceed if not wanted.  

 

@Greg Doudna The object of the ink analysis — the Pierre Lafitte 1963 datebook — is private property.

I understand if you would like to retract your offer.

To repeat, the parties involved are under Non-Disclosure Agreement; if any choose to break those agreements with a party or parties with  no legal standing whatsoever e.g. you, when they have refused to do so with the parties with legal standing, there would naturally be repercussions.

If you want to encourage Mr. Aginsky to confer with me directly, that would be acceptable; otherwise he would be in contravention of his agreement. I predict repercussions would ensue.

If you want to pursue another ink analyst as you offered — the calibre of Aginsky and under the terms I've previously laid out — you are welcome to do so.

 

Edited August 22, 2023 by Leslie Sharp