Pierre Lafitte datebook, 1963

[Benjamin Cole]

"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."---LS

---

In other words, if---as many have concluded---the purported Pierre Laffite datebook is an obvious and vulgar fraud, concocted for crass commercial reasons, the JFKA community is not allowed to confirm its entirely justified skepticism due to a labyrinth of inexplicable and unintelligible (and evidently permanent) legal entanglements.

I propose the mods develop a limiting rule for posters who are promoting possible frauds for  commercial reasons. 

I understand and accept farfetched but earnest explanations for the JFKA. 

But when there are commercial reasons for a probably fraudulent JFKA story, perhaps the mods should get involved. 

[Greg Doudna]

6 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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 believe there is a misunderstanding. There is an owner of the forensic analysis, who is in control of those NDA's which you said was preventing you from gaining access and disclosing that report. 

Asking the owner of property for permission to obtain a photocopy and for permission to post it on a website does not require "legal standing". Any human being has "legal standing" to ask permission of a rightful owner. 

It is like asking for copyright permission. Anyone can ask the copyright holder. If a person is human, that person has legal standing to ask for a copyright permission. 

Who is the legal owner or controller of that forensic analysis and the NDA's--who would have the power or control to lift those NDA's legally on the scientists and examiners and their reporting? After all this time, you refuse to say, to give a straight answer to that question.

I am a slow learner, but it is slowly dawning on me that that ultimate authority over access of that report is beginning to sound a lot like either you or someone you are representing. 

You threaten a scientist just now who is not even present here with bad legal consequences if he violates his NDA. I am not suggesting or recommending anyone to violate a NDA or act improperly, but why is that your problem or concern? You have always portrayed yourself as a fellow victim of those NDA's, not an enforcer of them. Where do you come in on the enforcement and threats end, when you always claimed you had nothing to do with the imposition of those NDA's? What's it to you? Your warnings to that scientist only make sense if you are indeed the owner or decisionmaker or are acting in some form of agency for that owner or decisionmaker, and do not want that report released.

Is it the case that the film company which you earlier seemed to say owned the NDA's is not the decisionmaker or owner, but instead one Phen Lafitte is? A woman said to carry that name is stated to be sole controller of the copyright of the Lafitte Datebook on page 605 of Coup in Dallas?

"Date Book 1963. Pierre Lafitte. Copyright Lafitte Family. 2009. Custodian: Phen Lafitte, Miami, Florida." (Coup in Dallas, 605)

Does Phen Lafitte have the power of release of the NDA's, and of the forensic report? Is she the one who has legal standing to release that forensic report, the decider, if she were to so choose? 

If so, that brings up a question, speaking of that copyright on the Lafitte Datebook in the name of Phen Lafitte, perhaps you can answer. How can someone contact Phen Lafitte to ask for copyright permission, such as to quote from the Lafitte Datebook in a publication, if they should want to do so? To do the right thing and ask for copyright permission? 

There is no known mailing address for Phen Lafitte.

There is no known existence of Phen Lafitte in any online reference, record, database, vital statistics, genealogy site, social media, or anywhere.

There is no known photo of her.

There is no known public statement from her.

To my knowledge, there is no known person living today who has reported ever having seen her, or talked with her in person, even though she is presented in the 2021 Coup in Dallas as living. 

There is no known biographical information, no known occupation, no known year of birth, and as noted no known mailing address, no known anything. 

This is the stated copyright holder one is to contact to request copyright permissions concerning the Lafitte Datebook.

How does one do that for a person with no known address or evidence of physical existence? 

Asking a legal owner for permission to obtain a photocopy of a report which that owner owns, or to lift NDA's on other parties which is in that owner's control, requires no "legal standing" in order to make that request, Leslie. You are blowing smoke and it is not right.

In the academic and scientific world, requests are made for access to reports from colleagues and strangers all the time, and commonly honored. That is called collegiality. It has nothing--nothing--to do with any issue of "legal standing" before one is allowed to pick up the phone and ask for a copy of a report, or permission to quote from it or archive it, or write or email and ask.

And here you disclose for the first time that those NDA's which you have all along said were blocking you from access to that forensic examination, no longer are applicable to you.

6 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

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.

You have claimed up to this point, that you were unable to access that forensic analysis, claiming the NDA's on the examiners were blocking you. Now you are saying it is legally acceptable if one of those scientists discloses to you (but not to anyone else). When did your status change on that? 

You have given the impression all this time that you wanted public access of that forensic analysis, but that that was out of your control.

Is it?

Who is in control of access to that forensic analysis?

Why this Dance of the Seven Veils, this secrecy, over who owns the forensic analysis report, this citing of rules you just make up out of thin air such as claiming someone does not have "legal standing" to request permission from a copyright owner, or owner of a report, to access or offer to publish that report? 

You are beginning to sound as if just maybe you do not intend that report ever to see the light of day.

You will not even disclose who has the authority capable of making that happen.

The most common reason reports of this nature are buried never to see the light of day is because someone does not want the content of the information to become known. In this case: an apparently comprehensive, sophisticated professional ink forensic analysis bearing on the question of whether the Lafitte Datebook is a forgery.  

Done years ago. Hidden. Secret. Shameful.

I've seen this before, where an interested party hypocritically opposes science being done or published because of perceived threat to financial and/or career investment. https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2013/10/dou378031. 

[Greg Doudna]

I do not plan to seek a second ink analysis offer for the Datebook under the conditions set. Taken literally as Leslie stated them, Leslie was requiring the examiner not to be simply baseline competent and qualified (understandable), but equal in calibre to Aginsky the best, which may be a tough standard to match if he is the best and unavailable (via conflict of interest with the NDA's on the first ink analysis).

Leslie's other conditions were that if I was unable to obtain an offer of a full-ride gratis ink analysis (a long shot realistically) that I would be responsible for arranging the entire funding with Leslie offering a disappointingly low contribution of $0 toward the effort. Her third condition was that any negotiated discounted rate I might obtain from an examiner to make the rate affordable to those who might be paying for it other than her would be unacceptable. Again, from a literal reading of her conditions.

The tipping point apart from those rather onerous starting conditions, frustration at no ability to discuss offlist, and the sense that my initiative was being characterized as an unnecessary interjection, is I suspect from Leslie's reaction today that the apparently comprehensive, high-quality ink analysis that has already been done may be within Leslie's power to bring to disclosure and access, if she were to wish it to become so.   

I made two phone call attempts in total, neither of which involved talking to an ink examiner or mention of the Lafitte Datebook. The first was to Aginsky's office last Saturday morning. I reached a voicemail, left my name and number and said I was calling wishing a consultation concerning ink analysis of a questioned document that did not involve a legal case, without mentioning the Datebook. I received no call back from Aginsky or his office. I spelled my name and it would have been easy for Aginsky or someone in his office to have googled my name and found these discussions on the Education Forum. It is just as well that they did not call back. 

The other call was to a forensic examiner in a state near Leslie, whom I did reach and speak with briefly, but she told me she did not do ink analysis. Again no mention of the Lafitte datebook. She gave me the name of an ink analyst in another state but I did not contact that examiner. And that is the end of that.  

 

On 8/18/2023 at 9:26 PM, 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. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"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."---LS

---

In other words, if---as many have concluded---the purported Pierre Laffite datebook is an obvious and vulgar fraud, concocted for crass commercial reasons, the JFKA community is not allowed to confirm its entirely justified skepticism due to a labyrinth of inexplicable and unintelligible (and evidently permanent) legal entanglements.

I propose the mods develop a limiting rule for posters who are promoting possible frauds for  commercial reasons. 

I understand and accept farfetched but earnest explanations for the JFKA. 

But when there are commercial reasons for a probably fraudulent JFKA story, perhaps the mods should get involved. 

I wouldn’t expect an “assassination hobbyist” to understand a thirty-year self-funded commitment that has yielded several dozen banker’s boxes of hardcopy research, two mac mini hard drives (and counting), crisscrossing the US to more than a dozen libraries including four presidential, thousands and thousands of hours and $$$ devoted to uncovering the genealogy of the Military-Industrial Complex  — not acronyms, but names and faces — tied to the cold case murder investigation of President Kennedy in Dallas, November 22.

So, before you accuse me any further of trying to profit from the death of John Kennedy, tell us, what sacrifices have you made?

[Leslie Sharp]

20 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I do not plan to seek a second ink analysis offer for the Datebook under the conditions set. Taken literally as Leslie stated them, Leslie was requiring the examiner not to be simply baseline competent and qualified (understandable), but equal in calibre to Aginsky the best, which may be a tough standard to match if he is the best and unavailable (via conflict of interest with the NDA's on the first ink analysis).

Leslie's other conditions were that if I was unable to obtain an offer of a full-ride gratis ink analysis (a long shot realistically) that I would be responsible for arranging the entire funding with Leslie offering a disappointingly low contribution of $0 toward the effort. Her third condition was that any negotiated discounted rate I might obtain from an examiner to make the rate affordable to those who might be paying for it other than her would be unacceptable. Again, from a literal reading of her conditions.

The tipping point apart from those rather onerous starting conditions, frustration at no ability to discuss offlist, and the sense that my initiative was being characterized as an unnecessary interjection, is I suspect from Leslie's reaction today that the apparently comprehensive, high-quality ink analysis that has already been done may be within Leslie's power to bring to disclosure and access, if she were to wish it to become so.   

I made two phone call attempts in total, neither of which involved talking to an ink examiner or mention of the Lafitte Datebook. The first was to Aginsky's office last Saturday morning. I reached a voicemail, left my name and number and said I was calling wishing a consultation concerning ink analysis of a questioned document that did not involve a legal case, without mentioning the Datebook. I received no call back from Aginsky or his office. I spelled my name and it would have been easy for Aginsky or someone in his office to have googled my name and found these discussions on the Education Forum. It is just as well that they did not call back. 

The other call was to a forensic examiner in a state near Leslie, whom I did reach and speak with briefly, but she told me she did not do ink analysis. Again no mention of the Lafitte datebook. She gave me the name of an ink analyst in another state but I did not contact that examiner. And that is the end of that.  

 

 

 

As I suspected once you hit a wall you would backpedal and somehow attempt to characterize me as unreasonable.  You didn't disappoint, Greg.

 

may be within Leslie's power to bring to disclosure and access, if she were to wish it to become so.   

 

You must think those reading this thread are idiots? I have posted on EF numous times now that  the ink analyst, Valery Aginsky, is under an NDA; I have attempted to secure the preliminary report through several avenues without success.  These are professionals — a concept that seems lost on some on this forum — and it is their prerogative to preserve their findings until such time as they decide to reignite the project.  At that time, they will have to go through me and the publisher.

So, thank you for spending a few hours with this Greg, but now, would you kindly cease posting your innuendos and (pardon the colloquialism), butt out.

[Benjamin Cole]

31 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

 

I wouldn’t expect an “assassination hobbyist” to understand a thirty-year self-funded commitment that has yielded several dozen banker’s boxes of hardcopy research, two mac mini hard drives (and counting), crisscrossing the US to more than a dozen libraries including four presidential, thousands and thousands of hours and $$$ devoted to uncovering the genealogy of the Military-Industrial Complex  — not acronyms, but names and faces — tied to the cold case murder investigation of President Kennedy in Dallas, November 22.

So, before you accuse me any further of trying to profit from the death of John Kennedy, tell us, what sacrifices have you made?

LS-

I have written several stories for KennedysandKing, and a few more for EF-JFKA, all without compensation. When I lived in the States, I supported certain JFKA related groups with modest financial contributions. 

I appeared on Len Osanic's radio program a few times, gratis. 

I supported the last one or two rounds of fund-raising at EF-JFKA. 

I never foisted a fraud on the JFKA community, and always revealed my sources entirely and in a  forthright aboveboard manner, which is a minimum baseline. This practice resulted in parts of a recent story I authored being corrected by Mark Ulrik, for which I am grateful. 

That is the right attitude and baseline for JFKA research .

Blunt question: Who can give permission for the purported Lafitte datebook to be independently reviewed by a team of document experts? 

Who, and do you have that individual's name, phone number, and e-mail address, or other social media contacts? 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Benjamin Cole

[Leslie Sharp]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I believe there is a misunderstanding. There is an owner of the forensic analysis, who is in control of those NDA's which you said was preventing you from gaining access and disclosing that report. 

Asking the owner of property for permission to obtain a photocopy and for permission to post it on a website does not require "legal standing". Any human being has "legal standing" to ask permission of a rightful owner. 

Of course you may ask.  I'm simply putting you and others on notice that the parties holding the reports refused to release them to those with legal standing in the proposed project. Were they to choose to release them to a civilian who has no investment in the project, there would be repercussions.

You then asked me to reveal who financed the reports and I refused your request, which is my prerogative. However, since you touted that you are  more educated in the field of document analysis, I shared a name of one of the best in the field - Valery Aginsky (who oddly enough you had never heard of)  and encouraged you to contact him for ink examiner referrals;  I said that I would consider it unethical professionally were he to discuss our report with you and that I anticipated he would be well aware of the potential repercussions.  Again, these people are professionals, a concept that seems to evade you.

It is like asking for copyright permission. Anyone can ask the copyright holder. If a person is human, that person has legal standing to ask for a copyright permission. 

You may ask permission and you can anticipate that not everyone grants requests, particularly  in this field of research which is riddled with less than honorable characters who are skilled at misrepresentation and cannibalizing documents to suit an agenda.

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Who is the legal owner or controller of that forensic analysis and the NDA's--who would have the power or control to lift those NDA's legally on the scientists and examiners and their reporting? After all this time, you refuse to say, to give a straight answer to that question.

I am under no obligation to answer your question and I'm growing weary of your presumptions.

I am a slow learner, but it is slowly dawning on me that that ultimate authority over access of that report is beginning to sound a lot like either you or someone you are representing. 

Nice Try, Greg, but you are completely off base and (assuming it's possible for narcissists to be embarrassed), you will be embarrassed eventually if you continue your accusations and innuendos. 

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You threaten a scientist just now who is not even present here with bad legal consequences if he violates his NDA.

I'm saying that anyone who signs an NDA is cognizant of potential repercussions. 

 I am not suggesting or recommending anyone to violate a NDA or act improperly, but why is that your problem or concern?

The object of the ink analyses is the Pierre Lafitte datebook; the NDA applies to the entire project which included ink analysis; without the datebook, there was no need for Mr. Aginsky.  It is not rocket science, Greg.

You have always portrayed yourself as a fellow victim of those NDA's, not an enforcer of them.

I have said that I'm frustrated with the dynamic, and have been for four years. I would not personally or professionally break a non-disclosure agreement so why would I anticipate they would; presumably you wouldn't either. 

Where do you come in on the enforcement and threats end, when you always claimed you had nothing to do with the imposition of those NDA's? What's it to you?

The reports belong to those involved in the project.  You have no standing.  I recommend you "stand down," Greg, lest you skirt on interference.

Your warnings to that scientist only make sense if you are indeed the owner or decisionmaker or are acting in some form of agency for that owner or decisionmaker, and do not want that report released.

Nice Try, Greg.

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Is it the case that the film company which you earlier seemed to say owned the NDA's is not the decisionmaker or owner, but instead one Phen Lafitte is? A woman said to carry that name is stated to be sole controller of the copyright of the Lafitte Datebook on page 605 of Coup in Dallas?

"Date Book 1963. Pierre Lafitte. Copyright Lafitte Family. 2009. Custodian: Phen Lafitte, Miami, Florida." (Coup in Dallas, 605)

Does Phen Lafitte have the power of release of the NDA's, and of the forensic report? Is she the one who has legal standing to release that forensic report, the decider, if she were to so choose? 

Continue to do your own enquiries, as is your prerogative.  

If so, that brings up a question, speaking of that copyright on the Lafitte Datebook in the name of Phen Lafitte, perhaps you can answer. How can someone contact Phen Lafitte to ask for copyright permission, such as to quote from the Lafitte Datebook in a publication, if they should want to do so? To do the right thing and ask for copyright permission? 

There is no known mailing address for Phen Lafitte.

There is no known existence of Phen Lafitte in any online reference, record, database, vital statistics, genealogy site, social media, or anywhere.

There is no known photo of her.

There is no known public statement from her.

To my knowledge, there is no known person living today who has reported ever having seen her, or talked with her in person, even though she is presented in the 2021 Coup in Dallas as living. 

There is no known biographical information, no known occupation, no known year of birth, and as noted no known mailing address, no known anything. 

This is the stated copyright holder one is to contact to request copyright permissions concerning the Lafitte Datebook.

How does one do that for a person with no known address or evidence of physical existence? 

Asking a legal owner for permission to obtain a photocopy of a report which that owner owns, or to lift NDA's on other parties which is in that owner's control, requires no "legal standing" in order to make that request, Leslie. You are blowing smoke and it is not right.

In the academic and scientific world, requests are made for access to reports from colleagues and strangers all the time, and commonly honored. That is called collegiality. It has nothing--nothing--to do with any issue of "legal standing" before one is allowed to pick up the phone and ask for a copy of a report, or permission to quote from it or archive it, or write or email and ask.

And where has your collegiality been with a fellow Kennedy assassination researcher, Greg? Why didn't you contact me in December 2021 rather than attack a recently deceased well-respected journalist's investigation?

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And here you disclose for the first time that those NDA's which you have all along said were blocking you from access to that forensic examination, no longer are applicable to you.
 

I don't understand what you mean.

You have claimed up to this point, that you were unable to access that forensic analysis, claiming the NDA's on the examiners were blocking you. Now you are saying it is legally acceptable if one of those scientists discloses to you (but not to anyone else). When did your status change on that? 

If Mr. Aginsky secures permission to release the report to me, of course I would accept it; if he were to release it to you, there would be repercussions.  With all due respect, I'm beginning to wonder if you're intellectually equipped to even have this discussion.

You have given the impression all this time that you wanted public access of that forensic analysis, but that that was out of your control.
 

 

Is it?

Who is in control of access to that forensic analysis?

I've explained this, repeatedly, Greg.  Are you being deliberately obtuse? 

Why this Dance of the Seven Veils, this secrecy,

 

Your Texas Two-Step reveals how embarrassed you are having given up after only two phone calls. I've been at this for forty-eight months. You didn't like my terms and conditions but you didn't have the professionalism to counter offer, so you launch into this bizarre rehash of issues I assumed we had moved  beyond.

The offer still stands:  If you want to identify another ink analyst who will agree to the terms and conditions I laid out in the original good faith proposal, let me know.

 

over who owns the forensic analysis report, this citing of rules you just make up out of thin air such as claiming someone does not have "legal standing" to request permission from a copyright owner, or owner of a report, to access or offer to publish that report? 

Bluster.  There is no "copyright" related to the ink analyses. The professionals involved agreed to Non-Disclosures to protect the project from ghouls. Can I be more blunt?

You are beginning to sound as if just maybe you do not intend that report ever to see the light of day.

You sound desperate to save face; you failed in your two phone calls, and I realize you're not all that interested in the success of Coup in Dallas anyway, a fact that should be clear to even the most naive Doudna sycophant.

You will not even disclose who has the authority capable of making that happen.

No, I won't, because it is unprofessional and unethical for you to attempt to interject yourself in the legal dynamics that could tie up authentication indefinitely.  Perhaps that might be your agenda?

The most common reason reports of this nature are buried never to see the light of day is because someone does not want the content of the information to become known.

That may be the case, but it's not from my end of the copyright, I assure you.

 

In this case: an apparently comprehensive, sophisticated professional ink forensic analysis bearing on the question of whether the Lafitte Datebook is a forgery.  

Nope.  You can continue to spin, Greg, but the falsehoods have been yours from the outset. You "analysed" an instrument you had never laid eyes on. Shameful, and you keep digging your own professional grave.

Done years ago. Hidden. Secret. Shameful.

I've seen this before,

 

I've seen this before over the years.  Newbies arrive on the scene around the time of anniversaries and breakthroughs.  If I were suspicious, I might wonder who turned you on to the Kennedy assassination?

where an interested party hypocritically opposes science being done or published because of perceived threat to financial and/or career investment.

. . . where a pseudo professional appeals to authority, in fact,  Roger Stone infiltrating the tent several decades ago comes to mind.  Speaking of UA, I wonder if you have met engineering prof. (purportedly a professor although I could never nail that down) Jeffrey Sundberg?  https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/2013/10/dou378031. 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS-

I have written several stories for KennedysandKing, and a few more for EF-JFKA, all without compensation. When I lived in the States, I supported certain JFKA related groups with modest financial contributions. 

I appeared on Len Osanic's radio program a few times, gratis. 

I supported the last one or two rounds of fund-raising at EF-JFKA. 

I never foisted a fraud on the JFKA community, and always revealed my sources entirely and in a  forthright aboveboard manner, which is a minimum baseline. This practice resulted in parts of a recent story I authored being corrected by Mark Ulrik, for which I am grateful. 

That is the right attitude and baseline for JFKA research .

Blunt question: Who can give permission for the purported Lafitte datebook to be independently reviewed by a team of document experts? 

Who, and do you have that individual's name, phone number, and e-mail address, or other social media contacts? 

Please read the terms and conditions I provided Greg earlier in this thread.

And do you seriously contend your sacrifice ... writing some articles and being interviewed and dropping a few dollars  ... is comparable?  

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Benjamin Cole]

28 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Please read the terms and conditions I provided Greg earlier in this thread.

This thread is 22 pages long.

How about you just put down a contact, or a lawyer or representative of a contact, who has the power to open up the purported datebook to review by a panel of respected experts? 

You cannot perform that simple, straightforward, aboveboard, task? 

[Leslie Sharp]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This thread is 22 pages long.

How about you just put down a contact, or a lawyer or representative of a contact, who has the power to open up the purported datebook to review by a panel of respected experts? 

You cannot perform that simple, straightforward, aboveboard, task? 

Bullying as a last resort, Benjamin?  

Please read the terms and conditions I laid out in a response to Greg's offer to identify an ink analyst.  If you would like to participate in the effort, please share with me your qualifications and your intended contribution? Otherwise, you are an observer only.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Leslie Sharp]

22 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

This thread is 22 pages long.

How about you just put down a contact, or a lawyer or representative of a contact, who has the power to open up the purported datebook to review by a panel of respected experts? 

You cannot perform that simple, straightforward, aboveboard, task? 

Here ya go, Benjamin, I'll make it easy; and perhaps it might behove @Greg Doudna to review the following as well:

Greg in black; Leslie in purple:

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 not 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  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.   

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Benjamin Cole]

8 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Bullying as a last resort, Benjamin?  

Please read the terms and conditions I laid out in a response to Greg's offer to identify an ink analyst.  If you would like to participate in the effort, please share with me your qualifications and your intended contribution? Otherwise, you are an observer only.

 

What I observe is that you are unwilling, or unable, to provide the JFKA research community the name and contact of an individual, or a lawyer for such an individual, who can open up the purported and possibly fraudulent datebook to review by uninterested experts. 

Why any conditions at all? 

I want to get the ball rolling on independent review of the datebook, and with you not involved. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

What I observe is that you are unwilling, or unable, to provide the JFKA research community the name and contact of an individual, or a lawyer for such an individual, who can open up the purported and possibly fraudulent datebook to review by uninterested experts. 

Why any conditions at all? 

I want to get the ball rolling on independent review of the datebook, and with you not involved. 

 

You're not listening, Benjamin.

Please see my proposal to Greg. Apparently he didn't like the terms and conditions since he proceeded to issue his own buried somewhere in the rubble of rehashing his accusations that Hank was either a fool or a fraud.
 

I'm trying to determine the credential either of you have to demand that "the community" should rise up and prohibit me from posting about this datebook on Education Forum?  You have yet to address the implications of a single specific entry and the conclusions one must draw. What about this has you so disturbed?

@Greg Doudna Don't either of you realize your vociferous refusal to even consider the potential breakthrough suggests to some observers that you might want this information suppressed? 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by Leslie Sharp

[Benjamin Cole]

47 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

You're not listening, Benjamin.

Please see my proposal to Greg. Apparently he didn't like the terms and conditions since he proceeded to issue his own buried somewhere in the rubble of rehashing his accusations that Hank was either a fool or a fraud.
 

I'm trying to determine the credential either of you have to demand that "the community" should rise up and prohibit me from posting about this datebook on Education Forum?  You have yet to address the implications of a single specific entry and the conclusions one must draw. What about this has you so disturbed?

@Greg Doudna Don't either of you realize your vociferous refusal to even consider the potential breakthrough suggests to some observers that you might want this information suppressed? 

 

LS--

Just tell us someone to contact, so we can at least try to get the datebook authenticated by an independent review panel. 

If you are earnest, you will happily remove yourself from the process, as you are a non-objective and interested party. 

 

[Leslie Sharp]

3 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

Just tell us someone to contact, so we can at least try to get the datebook authenticated by an independent review panel. 

If you are earnest, you will happily remove yourself from the process, as you are a non-objective and interested party. 

 

@Greg Doudna @Benjamin Cole The discussion related to previous attempts at authentication is closed.

Please read the proposal, Benjamin, and perhaps you can persuade Greg to continue his quest for an ink analyst.