IAI Cover-up continues

[Thomas Mollett]

After reasonable time given neither Deborah Leben or Lesley Hammer of the IAI could produce one shred of evidence that a PRB actually existed to investigate our complaints against Pat Wertheim, Arie Zeelenberg and Michael Grimm. Nothing. No evidence that the PRB that Leben told us was appointed and on whose decision the Board supposedly rested, ever existed.

The honest members in the IAI, of which I believe there are many, should stand up now or the IAI should rather change their name to the International Association of Liars, an organization simply taking membership fees - offering no regulation in return.

http://www.truth4inge.com/iai_cover-up.html

[clpexco]

Thomas,

As admin of this forum, and as an honest member of the IAI, I have many issues with your post. I would guess that the reason nobody else has answered your post is due to its slanderous nature towards the IAI. It is established in IAI policy that the inner workings of PRBs are not shared with anyone outside the committee; not even those who are the subject of the allegations. The fact that letters were issued by the IAI to those against whom allegations were made should be evidence enough that the PRB existed. The IAI doesn't just produce letters with no basis. They are a professional organization. As an honest member of the IAI I don't expect them to have to account for their actions to you or anyone else when it is their policy to keep documentation on ethics inquiries private. In fact, I appreciate the fact that they do so. You near the line with your comment about changing the name of the IAI to one involving liars. In the past I have banned users for slanderous and libelous comments toward other members of the forum. This is different because it's an organization (and one I am proud to be a member of). But just because they don't produce documentation on your whim to view it doesn't make them or the organization a liar. Please refrain from slanderous and libelous posts in the future or I will take action to have you and your posts removed from this forum.

-Kasey

[Thomas Mollett]

Dear Kasey

Please don’t oversimplify the matter. When an organization such as the IAI rules on a matter they surely have to give reasons and explanations why and how they arrived at their findings. That is how it works. In a court, in an Inquiry, in any dispute of any nature. Not a copy and paste rendition of a standard letter. One page letters in which they couldn’t even copy and paste the names over correctly. We have given them enough and reasonable time to give us ANY evidence that the PRB existed, and certainly not “on a whim”. They can’t produce anything. If they don’t want to provide the names of the PRB members, fine, then they can black it out – as we have suggested they do – or compile their finding in a nub in a summary. We simply want explanations. That is a fair request.

The fact that they produced letters stating that the board “accepted the PRBs findings” is certainly not any evidence that the PRB existed. Who sent the letters out to the respondents initially, the IAI or the “PRB”? Evidence? On what grounds do we just have to accept their ”word”? Because YOU say they are a professional organization? (And we do we make of the fact that Leben initially said the complaints had merit for further investigation – and then just nothing further seemed to have happened? Did the PRB, if they existed, see absolutely nothing in these merits Leben have found?)

Please take note that we have received personal emails from other IAI members who do not share your esteemed view of the IAI. I’ll rather not divulge some of the content. Who should we believe? Or are we perhaps allowed to make our own deductions based on the very unprofessional way they have handled our petitions, including the IAI president sending our emails around to whomever she wishes. How professional is that? Ignoring reasonable emails and request. Simply and clearly trying to side-step the issue. Informing others of the outcome before the rejection letters were drafted and we were informed of it? Overall their handling of this matter could be considered as utterly unprofessional and deceptive, and unfortunately, Kasey, this perception is based on OUR experience of them and not on your opinion as a “proud member”, entitled to it as you are.

If they cannot give us valid reasons and explanations as to how and the PRB arrived at their findings, we have no reason to believe that they investigated our complaints. And therefore we have no reason to attach any value to their “ruling”. And as things stand now their ruling is not worth the paper it is written on. They have shown no concern or regard for the furthering and promotion of justice and the regulation of industry standards.

Please also take note that they did not rule on what we have asked them them to investigate and now they refuse to investigate these matters which simply by simple deduction were not investigated. If, for example, they did not rule on the “misidentification” charge, as we have clearly asked them to do, then they simply did not investigate it. Period. We would like to know that they investigated the “lip print” and if they repeated Pat Wertheim’s experiment. Why should we believe they did if they can offer no feedback or explanations on it? Why, tell me?

Our allegations are substantiated by provable facts, and they are there for all to see; those who want to dispute them are welcome to take it up with us. Here or elsewhere. It is curious that blatant lies that some other members on this forums tell are permitted but not our substantiated opinion. Pat Wertheim, your father, was allowed here and elsewhere for years to make unfounded statements about the South African Police, slandering them and accusing them of e.g. planting glasses and who knows what else. Based on his opinion, nothing more. And then spreading these type of lies at the conferences of the IAI, the very organization of which you have such high esteem. He can tell people here how “mostly unsuccessful publisher” I am while I left the business in Jan 2010 already. Simply because he blindly believes and spread every bit of secondhand info that he gets from his friend Louis van der Vyver. But I know from who it comes, and why, so I’m not bothered, but perhaps you should be a bit more objective and less partisan.

I’m under no disillusionment about “replies” or “support” on this forum, I’m not here for a popularity contest but to make a contribution to the truth; however, we trust that there are more than enough honest members and experts out there that value the TRUTH and who will stand up for it – as is being proved by the numerous offers we are getting from experts around the globe to help us in our fight for the truth. One day the truth will stand naked in front of of in all its glory – then we will see who was “slanderous and libelous” and who not.

The truth is a good ally, you know. The fact that some can’t stomach it, does not detract from this.

But, I take heed of your “warning” as administrator and will check my wording. But we will not stop fighting for the truth. Neither here nor elsewhere.

Just a last thought: Perhaps you can ask your father if he would be willing to come and fight his own fights here, as it seems this little warning under the IAI blanket, is to divert the issue and to find an excuse to get me off here. Ask him if he would be willing to do his experiment on live TV and to explain to us why he believes the print on Folien 1 is a lip print – and friend Arie to explain to us why lips prints will generally be sloped “because we can’t empty a glass because it touches the nose”, and his condensation theory, and to do his many other entertaining experiments, etcetera – with Leben and Hammer present – and then we’ll see if we are unreasonable to demand answers from them. However, I’m not holding my breath. Just as I’m not holding my breath that they have the guts to answer the open letters.

Kindest regards

Thomas Mollett

PS.: Those who do not want to reply here but who would like to take the issue up with me, or to – like some others have done – offer assistance, please email me at thomasmollett@gmail.com

[briano]

Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie (AFDB). Was $16, price reduced to $3. Could be a good investment Mr Mollett.

www.zpaptop.net/afdb

[Staalburger]

Re: Evidence Fabrication in South Africa
Postby Staalburger » Tue Oct 01, 2013 7:47 pm

ATTENTION: THE PRESIDENT IAI: LESLEY HAMMER
Your reference:
IAI Presidential Update

Open Letter to the Membership Regarding the IAI Disciplinary Process
September 20, 2013
http://www.theiai.org/president/index.php

Dear Lesley

Having read the IAI Presidential Update (Your Open Letter to the Membership) as per above link, I hereby wish to obtain some clarity from you.


A certain Louis van der Vyver posted " The body of the text of the letters sent to the IAI members concerned:" on this forum as shown at the bottom of this post.
My questions regarding this post are the following:

1. Is Louis van der Vyver a member of the IAI and in that capacity a receiver of this letter in which your name is also mentioned ?

2. If not, why and by whom was he presented with the said letter?

3. Certainly the IAI would have made a public announcement on the matter if it was not aimed privately and confidentially at its members. Did the IAI indeed issue a public announcement to this effect, or was it supposed to be a confidential matter for members' attention only?

4. If the letter was regarded as important information to members of the IAI, why did you or the IAI not post the letter? Why leave it up to Louis van der Vyver for posting it here? Is he in fact the henchman of your society tasked with the the dirty work ?

When I asked these questions on this forum, I received a rather hostile reponse from this person, Louis van der Vyver. Although responding to my questions, Louis van der Vyver did not even bother to answer my perfectly valid and very simple questions in a decent and educated way.

I then directed my questions to Pat Wertheim, only to receive a most disgusting post from this member of your association. I was really shocked to learn that your highly esteemed member would be as ill-mannered and rude, telling me on a public forum not to get my "panties in a wad." If this is the childish and scandalous way your members behave in public, I have a very serious question about their professionalism. His behaviour is certainly also reflecting very badly on the organisation and its members.

I really trust and hope to get a more refined response from a lady, especially one in your position.
Hope to hear from you soon.

Staalburger



Top
Re: Evidence Fabrication in South Africa
Postby Louis van der Vyver » Sat Aug 17, 2013 11:22 am

The body of the text of the letters sent to the IAI members concerned:

International Association
for Identification
August 14,2013

Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Address xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

Re: Notification of Decision of the Board of Directors of the International Association for
Identification in Connection with a Complaint Filed by Calvin Mollett ("Petitioner")
against ……………….. ("Respondent")

Dear Mr. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I am writing to inform you of the decision of the International Association for
Identification ("IAI") Board of Directors concerning the complaint made by Calvin Mollett
against you. The complaint alleges that you violated the IAI Code of Ethics and Standards of
Professional Conduct concerning your testimony and conclusions in connection with a murder
trial in South Africa in 2005-2006 (State v. Frederik Barend van der Vyver).

Pursuant to Article XVII of the IAI Bylaws, IAI President Deborah Leben convened a
Professional Review Board ("PRB") to consider the complaint, herein referred as the Petition.
After careful review of the Petition, the evidence submitted in support of the Petition, and
information submitted by the Respondent, the PRB determined that you did not violate the Code
of Ethics or the Standards of Professional Conduct. As no violation was committed, it was
recommended that no punitive action be taken.

At the annual meeting in August 2013, the Board of Directors considered the PRB's
findings and recommendation. After careful consideration, the Board of Directors agreed with
the decision of the PRB that no violation had been committed and the Petition was dismissed.
This is a final decision and cannotbe appealed by the Petitioner.

Best Regards,

(signed)
Phyllis Karasov
General Counsel
International Association for Identification

cc: President Lesley Hammer
1469303.1
Last edited by Louis van der Vyver on Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Staalburger

Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 11:09 pm

[Thomas Mollett]

"briano", say you what, after you got yourself a little somethingy at http://circusclowncostume.org/, you tell us about Pat's little party trick. OK with you?

http://www.truth4inge.com/Wertheim_exp_ ... y_webA.pdf

The little trick the IAI would rather cover-up.

You are more than welcome to challenge me on facts, under your real name or not.