- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SaintsReport post on modified hand-written documents
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:24 am to Eighteen
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:24 am to Eighteen
quote:
basically the NFL had the document digitally altered...the question is if they did it for clarity or if they did it to fit their story line
Tampering is Tampering in my book. Oh we just put the semen in her arse to complete the rape puzzle.
2
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:27 am to Chad504boy
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:30 am to Eighteen
quote:
ETA: we meed Slo or another attourney to weigh in on the use of digital documents in court...people on SR are saying it is not admissible.
electronic documents are admissible. hell they're becoming preferred
now, there is an authentication process that must be done prior to a document being admitted. that's where you'll run into issues with this
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
electronic documents are admissible. hell they're becoming preferred
what about electronically altered documents?
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
electronic documents are admissible. hell they're becoming preferred
now, there is an authentication process that must be done prior to a document being admitted. that's where you'll run into issues with this
thanks
so the judge can request the actual original document and not just the scan, correct? thats all that really matters
just funny they would release to the public an altered document
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:34 am to Eighteen
quote:
we meed Slo or another attourney to weigh in on the use of digital documents in court
I'm an attorney. Most evidentiary decisions are left to the discretion of the Court.
If there are genuine issues as to the authenticity of the item, a Court may well preclude documentary evidence.
That said, you could simply have the person who created the document appear and testify as to his/her knowledge.
quote:
how tampering with a document would be held/punished if used
Usually non-admittance of the document is sanction enough. In some instances, contempt might be in order. Again, judicial discretion usually rules the day.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:34 am to ThePurpleHornet
quote:
Interesting note about how Illustrator works.
exactly. Was going to post this. I work with illustrator every day. It breaks shite up when you open a pdf in it. It looks suspicious but I don't think they tampered with it.
People tried the same stunt when Obama released his BC. They opened the PDF in illustrator, and oh no! there's layers! It must be fake!...Not really.
As proof, just look at the dollar sign at the top. Does anyone really think the saints colored it in like that, and then the nfl filled the white gaps back in? I don't think so.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:35 am to Chad504boy
quote:
Tampering is Tampering in my book. Oh we just put the semen in her arse to complete the rape puzzle.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:35 am to SlowFlowPro
My last post was said, sort of, in jest, but I do find it difficult to believe that the NFL would go through such measures to falsify a document and not cover their tracks. I'm thinking they didn't falsify it, but it just doesn't match up to what they have been saying all along.
To Slo, if they (witnesses) did, in fact, create these from memory and this does go to court, then how admissible is it as hearsay, if the other witness that is supposedly corroborating it, has a different account of what happened? Can it just fall into "well, they are mostly the same" or do the testimonies have to match absolutely?
Edited for redundancy.
To Slo, if they (witnesses) did, in fact, create these from memory and this does go to court, then how admissible is it as hearsay, if the other witness that is supposedly corroborating it, has a different account of what happened? Can it just fall into "well, they are mostly the same" or do the testimonies have to match absolutely?
Edited for redundancy.
This post was edited on 10/10/12 at 11:39 am
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:36 am to Eighteen
quote:
we meed Slo or another attourney to weigh in on the use of digital documents in court
Superchuck500 on SR is a N.O. attorney and has been money on the whole bounty thing from the get-go. He's definitely their go-to guy on all things bounty. I don't think he posts here, but would love it if he did. Maybe we should recruit him.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:36 am to iggle
quote:
exactly. Was going to post this. I work with illustrator every day. It breaks shite up when you open a pdf in it. It looks suspicious but I don't think they tampered with it.
People tried the same stunt when Obama released his BC. They opened the PDF in illustrator, and oh no! there's layers! It must be fake!...Not really.
As proof, just look at the dollar sign at the top. Does anyone really think the saints colored it in like that, and then the nfl filled the white gaps back in? I don't think so.
did you look at the .pdf and blow it up?
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:38 am to iggle
quote:
As proof, just look at the dollar sign at the top. Does anyone really think the saints colored it in like that, and then the nfl filled the white gaps back in? I don't think so.
That's what I thought too after looking at the pictures
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:41 am to Hazelnut
thats not even the biggest issue though, forget about the "layers" part for a moment...
does this look like the same "G"? Yes or no?
also can you clearly see a major difference between the "r" in Ornstein and Grant, compared to the "r" in Harper, and the "r" in Tracy P?
and would just putting the file into a .pdf create variations in the writing like this?
does this look like the same "G"? Yes or no?
also can you clearly see a major difference between the "r" in Ornstein and Grant, compared to the "r" in Harper, and the "r" in Tracy P?
and would just putting the file into a .pdf create variations in the writing like this?
This post was edited on 10/10/12 at 11:48 am
Posted on 10/10/12 at 11:53 am to SaintEB
quote:
I do find it difficult to believe that the NFL would go through such measures to falsify a document and not cover their tracks
I don't. Their view is that the CBA gives them 100% authority in this matter so none of this evidence would ever be scrutinized by the courts. Also, this may seem like a "rookie mistake", but you'd probably need to be both an expert in graphics programs and legal issues to even consider the consequences of saving a layered illustrator file as a PDF. Some guy in the graphics department was probably told to touch up the note and send it to them as a PDF.
I'm only moderately familiar with PDFs, but what someone else already posted sounds correct to me, if this was a scan the PDF would be "flat" and certainly would have multiple layers that just happen to appear to be text manipulation.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 1:13 pm to Eighteen
Thus is supposed to be a .PDF of a scanned document correct?
The only way there should be layers like we are seeing is if they manipulated the scan.
I'm not an expert, but I do work with illustor daily.
The only way there should be layers like we are seeing is if they manipulated the scan.
I'm not an expert, but I do work with illustor daily.
Posted on 10/10/12 at 1:19 pm to Farva
quote:
I'm an attorney. Most evidentiary decisions are left to the discretion of the Court.
If there are genuine issues as to the authenticity of the item, a Court may well preclude documentary evidence.
yeah these issues would likely be resolved well prior to trial
quote:
Usually non-admittance of the document is sanction enough. In some instances, contempt might be in order. Again, judicial discretion usually rules the day.
well i'm sure they'd request both copies in discovery and that's wehre the battle/potential sanctions would come out
Posted on 10/10/12 at 1:34 pm to Eighteen
Yea I know there are other sketchy things about this document besides the layers. I'm just saying that stood out to me
Posted on 10/10/12 at 1:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
well i'm sure they'd request both copies in discovery and that's wehre the battle/potential sanctions would come out
I guess that's my biggest hang-up over whether there would be "sanctions."
If alteration of the documents occurred prior to a court proceeding (say, for instance, during the investigation in 2010), it would likely be subject to a spoliation-type motion than true "sanctions," as envisioned by many on this board.
This post was edited on 10/10/12 at 2:28 pm
Posted on 10/10/12 at 1:41 pm to TigerRanter
Wow. How can a man in that position make this big of a mistake?
Posted on 10/10/12 at 1:42 pm to purplepylon
quote:
Wow. How can a man in that position make this big of a mistake?
Cause he talks out of his arse and shits out of his mouth.
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News