[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill Panagopulos</b><p>Dear Mr. Morales,<br /><br />Many of us are pleased that you have returned and now have the opportunity to address the many issues that have been brought to the fore re: your abilities and qualifications as an autograph authenticator. You made a number of statements in your initial response here, and I feel the easiest, most efficacious manner to respond would be to simply "parse" your response, which I will do in caps, below:<br /><br />I have recently returned from an assignment outside the country and have become aware of the “challenge” set forth by Shelly Jaffe concerning my capabilities and veracity. FOR ACCURACY'S SAKE, I BELEVE IT WAS YOU WHO HAD ISSUED "AN OPEN CHALLENGE" ON YOUR WEB SITE". I had not been aware of this site prior to this incident. I am open to discussions, however, as noted in subsequent additions to the “challenge”, it appears that minds are made up. The following quote illustrates my point. “You have your opinion, I have mine, neither of us is going to change.” More disturbing is the statement “Just to be a pain...it would take me five minutes to create and send that same card with my name and picture on it as well.” The comments seem to be suggesting engaging in fraudulent activities. YOU STATE YOU ARE OPEN TO A CHALLENGE. MR. JAFFE ISSUED SUCH A CHALLENGE AND YOUR SILENCE, FOR WHATEVER REASON, IS WHAT SPAWNED THE 200+ COMMENTS WHICH FOLLOWED. <br /><br />The attacks on my qualifications are false. I have contacted GW University for a correction. I have supplied a copy of my GW ID to this site. When I receive GW’s response I will share it with you. THANK YOU. WILL THEY PROVIDE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF YOUR TRANSCRIPT? WILL YOU OR THEY ALSO ADVISE WHAT "CONCENTRATION IN QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS" MEANS? WILL THE SECRET SERVICE PROVIDE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF THE TRAINING YOU RECEIVED? <br /><br />I have been laboratory trained as a document examiner, was certified and testified in court as a trained document examiner. PER MY POST ABOVE IT WOULD BEHOOVE YOU TO PROVIDE FULL DISCLOSURE OF YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND, SPECIFICALLY IN HANDWRITING AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS. ALTHOUGH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF FORENSIC LABORATORIES IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES IS A ADMIRABLE PURSUIT, I FAIL TO SEE ITS RELEVANCE IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT A LINCOLN SIGNATURE IS AUTHENTIC. ELABORATION ON YOUR TESTIMONY WOULD BE HELPFUL AS WELL. <br /> <br />As stated on my web site, I have never had a business or financial partnership with Donald Frangipani. At one time we discussed the concept of forming a partnership, but determined for various business reasons not to consummate the relationship. In my SCD interview, I stated that we were planning a company. It never happened. I would not have had to use the future tense if something already existed. SINCE YOU NOW DIGRESS FROM "THE CHALLENGE", PLEASE EXPLAIN THE WEB SITE "FORENSIC SIGNATURE AUTHENTICATIONS". IT SHOWS EXPERTS MESSRS. BRADLEY, SOLIS, FRANGIPANI AND MORALES. WERE YOU NOT PARTNERS?<br /><br />Despite his denials, while in prison Jaffe contacted one company seeking employment. He was turned down. The company was subsequently blasted on HBO. After his release, he contacted at least two dealers offering his services. He was not employed by either party, in light of his conviction on fraud and tax charges related to forged sports memorabilia. Considering the public actions taken against any named individual who challenges the actions of Jaffe and his associates, I am withholding the names of the people contacted, but stand ready to identify them in an appropriate forum subject to a confidentiality agreement. IMMATERIAL TO THE QUESTION AT HAND <br /><br />As admitted in his “challenge”, he, together with Richard Simon and Steven Koschal, authenticated items based on scans. As pointed out by me and others, scans are not primary evidEnce, and authentications based on scans are worthless. AS AN AUCTIONEER OF OVER 40,000+ HISTORIC AUTOGRAPHS, SIR, I CAN WELL ASSURE YOU THAT SOME FORGERIES ARE SO POORLY-ACCOMPLISHED, I DON'T NEED TO SEE THEM IN-PERSON. CAN YOU DENY THAT?<br /><br />As to the HBO program, I was asked to examine 5 or 6 actual items, not scans, and concluded that the items were authentic. To the best of my knowledge no one has examined all the seized items. Greg Marino made a blanket statement in a plea agreement, but never actually went through all of the items. <br />I IMAGINE MR. FITZSIMMONS COULD SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON THIS.<br /><br />It must also be noted that the individuals Jaffe admits associating with were tested in a court case last year in Indiana. The Court found, among other things, that both Simon and Koschal were not experts, were not trained, and were not reliable. These findings are set forth in the court’s decision. I WILL LEAVE IT TO MESSRS. KOSCHAL AND SIMON TO RESPOND.<br /><br />I stand by my statements, can and will provide proof of my credentials, and will verify under oath my representations.<br />RONALD REAGAN ONCE SAID: "TRUST, BUT VERIFY". FRANKLY, MR. MORALES, I HAVE NEVER TRUSTED YOUR JUDGMENT. I BASE MY OPINION ON YOUR HISTORICAL MATERIAL, AUTHENTICATIONS OF WHICH EMBARRASS ME. I CERTAINLY HAVE MADE MISTAKES...BUT I DON'T TOUT MYSELF AS A PROFESSIONAL AUTHENTICATOR. <br /><br />NEVERTHELESS, THAT'S ONLY MY OPINION. <br /><br />SHOW YOUR CREDENTIALS. MAKE THEM PUBLIC. IF YOU ARE INDEED AS QUALIFIED AS YOU SAY YOU ARE, THEN THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO USE YOUR SERVICES DO SO WITH "EYES WIDE OPEN". <br /><br />