jameson's Links  Terms of Service  News  Chat  Forum Archives  Cord Photos  Email  

jameson's WebbSleuths

Subject: "From Gideon Epstein's deposition" Archived thread - Read only
 
  Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences old JBR threads Topic #334
Reading Topic #334
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Oct-26-02, 09:41 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
"From Gideon Epstein's deposition"
 
   For Jarbo - - was Epstein paid???


7. Q. Do you now consider yourself a pro
8 bono expert or a for fee expert?
9 A. I consider myself a pro bono expert.
10 Q. And would you describe your reason,
11 please, for taking this matter on a pro bono
12 basis?

13 A. I've been involved in this profession
14 for 35 years, and have always considered that
15 the forensic sciences have a responsibility to
16 the criminal justice system, and I've felt very
17 strongly about that throughout my entire
18 professional career.
19 I feel that the questioned document
20 profession let the criminal justice system down
21 in this particular case, and I feel very
22 strongly that I would, if possible, like to set
23 that straight.
24 I don't believe that the forensic
25 reports that have been rendered in this case
0010
1 thus far by those document examiners who earlier
2 examined these documents were correct, and I
3 don't believe that justice has been served, and
4 that's my only reason for becoming involved in
5 the case.
6 Q. Mr. Epstein, given all that, why did
7 you charge twelve hundred dollars for the Rule
8 26 report?
9 A. Because I had expenses and we all
10 have bills, and there were cases that I had
11 turn down that were fee cases.


  Printer-friendly page | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
14249 posts
Oct-26-02, 10:01 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jameson Click to send private message to jameson Click to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "On Cina Wong - he doesn't respect her cr"
In response to message #0
 
   24 Do you understand that Ms. Wong is
25 your co-expert on handwriting in the case of
0032
1 Chris Wolf? Was that a smile captured just
2 then or an effort not to smile?
3 A. An effort not to smile. I don't
4 know what you mean by co- -- what was it you
5 said?

6 Q. My word was co-expert on handwriting
7 in the case of Chris Wolf.
8 A. I really don't know how to answer
9 that question, to tell you the truth, because I
10 was not aware until this morning on my way here
11 that she had, in fact, been deposed and that
12 she had, in fact, written another report.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, can I interject
14 here, because this is a thing that involves
15 counsel and you can put this on the record or
16 keep it off, whichever you like.
17 MR. RAWLS: Well, Darnay, first I'd
18 like for Mr. Epstein to finish his answer. I
19 didn't think he was finished, but he might have
20 been.
21 MR. HOFFMAN: I'm very sorry.
22 Q. Mr. Epstein.
23 A. I don't consider her as my co-expert
24 in this case.
25 Q. Why is that?
0033
1 A. Someone else may consider her as a
2 co-expert in this case, but I don't.
3 Q. Why?
4 A. Because I don't believe that she
5 meets what I and the profession consider to be
6 the necessary qualifications for forensic
7 document examination.
8 Q. Mr. Epstein, I don't either.
9 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, if this is when
10 you would like to make your remark, please feel
11 free to do so.
12 MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah. One of the
13 things that I was most concerned about with
14 respect to both Cina and Gideon was that there
15 would be no opportunity for either person to
16 really be able to comment on the work of the
17 other individual, on the theory that keeping the
18 handwriting experts from knowing about the work
19 of the other person could lead to truthful
20 answers that, in fact, they were not influenced
21 in any way by the work being done by the other
22 person. So that was really the reason.
23 MR. RAWLS: Thank you. Darnay, are
24 you finished?
25 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, Jim, thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

18 Q. -- but it is your view under your
19 understanding of the Daubert test, and given
20 your knowledge, your education, your expertise,
21 your training and your experience as a
22 board-certified document examiner, that Cina Wong
23 is not qualified under Daubert to render an
24 opinion about authorship of the ransom note at
25 issue in this case; correct?
0168
1 A. I would say that's correct.


  Printer-friendly page | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic