Dear Mr. Matley,
I write because you’ve been identified as the expert who authenticated suspicious memos concerning President Bush for Dan Rather of CBS News. I was in the photo-typesetting business in the mid-70s, and I spent many hours examining text produced by computer printers, Selectric typewriters, Linotypes, and photo typesetters in great detail, and I found your conclusion quite astonishing.
I see from your bio available on the Internet that you’re actually a handwriting expert and not a typography expert, so I’d like to ask if your work for CBS News encompassed the typographic features of the memos in question. If it did, I’d appreciate your suggesting what make and model of output device available to the military in 1972 could have produced variable size fonts, variable line spacing, and kerning. I’m not aware of one.
Similarly, I’m curious if you attested the authenticity of the grammatical features of the memos, in terms of such things as abbreviation and punctuation? The military has well-established standards for these things, which I’m sure would be familiar to you as an expert.
Finally, we’d all appreciate knowing how much time CBS News gave you to check these documents and any other useful information you an offer.
I’m interested in getting to the truth, so I’d like to share your response on the Internet for the many, many interested parties who now have serious questions about your analysis.
Best Regards,
Richard Bennett
Thank you for writing this. I hope you get an answer. I wrote to CBS news to complain but I have no expertise so it is good that you have expertise and can challenge this.
I updated my investigation into this tonight. I cannot believe the arrogance of the media (especially CBS) on this issue. They are totally acting as though these documents might be real. Heck, the DNC is sending out mail alerts to its supporters and creating strategy based on these forged doucuments.
Check out my analysis:
http://rupertzone.net
I am surprised more people aren’t creating their own forgeries of the forgery to help prove the facts.
Sorry, true Bush believers, but the Boston Globe today’s got reporting supporting CBS.
They’re now in “scoop” mode- and you can be sure the next thing up will be “how Bush got the honorable discharge.”
Look, Bush can’t prove he didn’t go AWOL- that’s the real problem you folks have. And the consequential problem is the attachment to Bush.
No matter how you spin it, the preponderance of evidence shows that Bush did, indeed, refuse a direct order, he went AWOL, and in those times, that meant desertion. And you support him.
Tonight, on CBS, I think America experienced another of the cathartic “have you no decency at long last?” moments.
Democracy is indeed coming back to America.
I don’t know which is more funny, John, your sweeping generalizations about the things you imagine all of America is thinking, your selection retention of information, or your premature conclusions.
The underpinnings of CBS’ story are crumbling as we now have revelations that memos of the type ordering medical exams were not common practice, the deadlines were all wrong, putative bosses had already retired, and CBS lied in phone interviews to get some words they could take out of context.
Rather makes Nixon look like a slacker.
Look, John K, there is no magical talisman of authority in the Boston Globe’s news room. They may support CBS, they may be wrong. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence (and testimony of experts) is that they are, indeed, wrong. Second, Bush does not have to prove he was not AWOL. In America, in any court (including, hopefully, that of public opinion) Bush enjoys the benefit of the presumption of innocence, as any oher citizen does.
Third, it is my understanding that it is nigh unto impossible to go “AWOL” in the Guard or Reserves when not on active-duty. Missing drills is common, as long as you can be contacted and can make up the work to meet the necessary point totals there is no problem. AWOL is a non-issue. As for refusing a direct order, there is no reliable evidence that this is the case, which leaves only the presumption of innocence in the absence of evidence.