That seems to be your modus operandi Mark, to directly attack a person's competence if he dares disagree you. What I said about Mr. Mancusi's report derives from Jerry Richards. He certainly has the competency to judge what both Mr. Mancusi and you write, and I believe I have the competency to understand plain English, all the more so in this instance because I have had numerous phone discussions with him. You and I have gone back and forth on this for long enough that I feel that no matter what arguments are presented, if they are at variance with the conclusion you reached over one year ago, if won't matter. You know more than anyone else, and you are the ultimate say. And you present technical arguments with fancy illustrations that I dare say very few people have the expertise to evaluate. That is all fine and you have every right to do so, and readers have every right to form the opinions they choose to form. But for those really seeking the truth, as I am, I choose to hire the best photo facial comparison expert I can and let him advise me. In the process I ask him to evaluate what your expert writes, which he also does.
So at the end I am choosing to go with my expert over you. As to the shots you take at my competence to do photo ID, at least I can admit I know my limitations and don't put myself out to be someone I am not. Let's too keep in mind that when we first started discussing this topic, you explicitly told me that photo ID is all science and no art, that photo ID should not take provenance and other external information into account, and that Cartwright couldn't be in the half plate because based on your analysis there were exclusionary differences between subject C and subject A1. Well on the first of these points you were wrong, on the second you were wrong, and on the third you were wrong. In addition now you tell us that it is not necessary to do separate comparisons of the half plate with each of the A subjects. Well on this point you are wrong too. And it is Mr. Richards who is saying you are wrong in each of these instances.
|