[bmarlowe1]

>>I believe Jerry Richards has ripped to threads not only Mr. Mancusi's report, but also his mode of analysis as well as the appropriateness of using an artist to do a photographic comparison. Who Mr. Mancusi works for is irrelevant, as shown by the completely botched iris analysis.

You neither understand facial comparison, nor the limitations of the analysis your expert provided. In my view you have no competence to judge Mr. Mancusi’s work. As far as my judgement of Mr. Richards, everything I said derives from Mr. Mancusi's report.

>> I have spent countless hours over the last year on this project….

This is not about you, and frankly I don’t think anyone does or should care how much effort you (or I) put in to this. If they are interested they should care about what is true. Now you are complaining because because a key point in your argument was easily refuted. You and your expert asserted that the feature differences shown in the C vs. AJC comparison are not at all remarkable. My expert and I say that they are. I have a counter-argument that resonates at least with some people. If I am wrong it should be easy for you.

>> I've done what we set out to do, and now I'm being told that I should be the one to look for images to establish my points.

No, you weren't told it just now. It is in the newsletter in my response to Mr. Richards report. If you understood what the arguments on my side were, the need for this would have been obvious very early on - when you saw my initial draft plus Mr. Mancusi's report.

>> It is not my intention to keep going back and forth. One would think if you were that satisfied with Mr. Mancusi's report settling the matter, you wouldn't feel the need to now act the photo ID expert.

That makes no sense. Everything I have said thus far in the forum with respect to subject C is supported in his report.

As for the irises, I refer people to page 30. Mr. Mancusi was right - they are smaller.