CLPEX Chat Board

Two quick questions Pat:

Who told you we filed a complaint against Bill Bodziak? We wanted to but we didn't. Seems like you and Ms Leben had a chatty relationship? She seems quite liberal with information.

How high were the glasses (of the set of four) that Dixon used, one of which he claimed made Folien 1? And how far apart are the lines on Folien 1?

Then, just for interest sake: What do you think of the fact that the main alibi witness, Shahana Toefy, was pulled from the stand at the last minute by the defence - since you are so stuck on the "iron-clad" alibi. And since the main defence was one of alibi. Why on earth would they have wanted to do this? Would love to hear your thoughts on this.

Mr Wertheim as you accuse me of forgery – let us talk about that. Do you know what a pseudonym is ? That is what we told Ms Leben – that we used two random pseudonyms to protect our identities for we wanted to limit to possibility of intimidation. A pseudonym is an assumed name to protect one’s identity. It is not illegal. We do not know anyone with the surname McAlpine – it is a random surname I chose (got it from the McAlpine Ford car dealership on Yonge Street in Aurora). John is the name of my father and Henry is his second name. Do you know what signature forgery is? It is the act of falsely replicating the signature of another person. Are you therefore accusing me of impersonating a real person with the name John McAlpine, and that I then forged his signature? Mr Wertheim, can you please produce this person so we can compare signatures? Or are you just making false accusations to direct the attention away from the real issues?

ps. Could you also please show me where I admit forging a signature?

Mr Wertheim you said in your narrative: “I received an email a few days later from one of the peer reviewers who had been contacted by Dennison.” Whether it was intentional or just a grammatical mishap – it seems to create the impression that we contacted more than one peer reviewer. We in fact only contacted one peer reviewer – the one from New Zealand, who gave us his peer review which consisted of two short e-mails (dated October 27, 2006 and November 22, 2006) – after he told us “BTW - don't expect too much - they consist of a few brief notes only”. We were somewhat surprised that what he produced could be considered an acceptable peer review by anyone. We did not contact your other peer reviewer, Arie Zeelenberg. Nor could we contact your US reviewer, as you somehow “forgot” his/her name.

ER = Eric Ray

powdered lips?

@Pat Wertheim

Hi Pat –

I trust that you are able to comprehend that I am a very disappointed person.The reason being that you have time to write platitudinous narratives on topics that you have received way later than all my letters and valid questions to you. Except, of course, for the one very rude response where you lost your temper and panties in very unprofessional fashion, and where you portrayed a very ugly side of yourself. Although I also responded somewhat sarcastically and tongue-in-the-cheek to that specific post, I thought that you must possess some decency and that you would put that exchange behind you and enter into a refined and adult conversation with me. I really can not comprehend why you are so over-sensitive about my questions because in normal terms they are so straightforward for an 'expert' like yourself.

Although you have not responded to my posts, I would like to respond to yóúr latest post, your narrative. Please forgive me for being blunt, but I have to call a spade a spade: I’m afraid that I cannot recommend your writing skills, or shall I say your lack of writing skills. A very brief summary of your narrative would be that it could be described as the work of a politician.....lots of words but not managing to say anything. However I would like to react to some of the nothingness.

1. "I will also try to keep this narrative as short a possible”
Reply: You failed dismally.

2. re: peer review of your work in the examination of fingerprint
evidence from the murder of Inge Lotz. ……………. “ I sent it
to several fingerprint experts outside of the US for peer
review” . “When contacted by Dennison in 2012 to learn the
names of my peer reviewers, I gave him the names of those I
could remember off the top of my head”
Reply: Hard to believe that you could not recall all the names.
How many were there? At least you could have just
consulted your computer -files!. This simply sounds highly
unprofessional and in no uncertain terms somewhat
suspicious!

3. Congratulations for determining the real names of
the two men who filed the complaints. Some great
detective work. Keep it up !

4. “Thomas lives in South Africa, where he is mostly just an
unsuccessful bookpublisher”
Reply: So what…? But I’d like to add that he is quite a
brilliant scientist.


5. “ the IAI convened several Professional Review Boards to
investigate the allegations”
Reply: When, where, who were the members. Any written
reports with regard to their comparison of evidence and
also their eventual findings?) Why not just give it to Louis van
der Vyver to post it on this site?


6. Thomas Molletts’s demonstration of lip prints by using
aluminium powder.Reply: Will you be able to prove his
conclusion derived from a very simple experiment, wrong as
compared to your lip theory in the Inge Lotz’s case?

7. The IAI report completely vindicated the examinations and
conclusions of Arie Zeelenberg and yourself.
Reply: Because nobody wants to tell me why Louis van der
Vyver was given the dirty work to post the IAI-letter to the
Mollett- brothers on this site, I kindly request The IAI via you,
Pat, to again task henchman Louis to post the IAI’s report,
having vindicated Arie and yourself. Seeing is believing.

8. “ For Mike Grimm’s examination into wound pathology, the IAI
concluded that there were no members sufficiently trained in
that field to review his work” Reply: So the Grimm (Reaper)
can make any ridiculous statement….like these below and the
IAI would not be able to review his outrageous assumptions.

8.1. What is your take on Michael Grimm's ridiculous theory that the wound to Inge Lotz's head was inflicted by a semi-automatic handgun / versus the hammer-blows theory ?

8.2. Just as a matter of interest. Michael Grimm's theory about the head wounds being made by a handgun: Were his tests also done on a pig's head in similar fashion that it was done with the hammer, and were the results compared with those of the hammer?

8.3. About Grimm's shocking revelation that Inge Lotz's body was bitten and skin torn from her body (by the murderer's teeth, I presume) and then dropped in the bathroom): Why was this never mentioned in his report during the trial?....or was it?

8.4. Apparently Michael Grimm spotted both blood and hair on the towel, as well as some other black or dark gray wipe marks, which according to him could have been oil and/or burned powder from a handgun wiped off with the towel? Was this merely speculation or did Mike indeed have the towel examined for residue and firearm oil ? What were the results? If not done, why not?

9. Your statement about the fact that the Molletts were writing a
book on the Inge Lotz murder.
Reply: So what……? This is a free country. Anthony Altbeker
has already written a book and apparently Michael Day also
intends to write one.


10. Roger Dixon’s conclusions: Reply: Pat,you entrust a
geologist to review your work. I’d rather go for much better
qualified scientists.

11. Your belief that the Molletts ‘rough draft’ was a ruse to
seek free editorial review from the IAI for their ‘book’. Reply:
with all respect, I think the Molletts would not consider the
IAI’s review even if it had been offered at remuneration.The IAI is not
even able to review Mike Grimm’s fantasies.

12. The Mollett’s call on their facebook page as quoted by a friend
of yours in S.A.
Reply: Why so secretive about your moling friend. I’m pretty
sure who it is, because you certainly do not have a lot of
friends in this country, especially not after having paid ‘lip
service’ in the Lotz case.

13. Two guys (not a minute of formal forensics training), ….
Who think they are forensic “experts’” because they can
smear aluminium powder on their lips. Reply: I dare you to
prove these two guys wrong on their theory. But I am
absolutely certain that you wouldn’t travel along that avenue,
because exactly your lip theory, (which is in reality a glove
print), will be exposed and shame you as you were shamed by
the accusations as mentioned in the Harrod- case:

Harrod NO. CR1995-009046-001
STATE OFARIZONA v. JAMES CORNELL HARROD

PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF
Google:

[PDF]
10 11 12 13 15 - The Case of James Harrod
jamesharrod.net/PDF/JamesHarrod_32Appeal.pdf‎



Apparently you are quite forgetful (refer: peer reviewer’s names), therefore my questions again in writing to refresh your mind:

1. Have you ever been accused of false testimony and perjury and thus compromising your
own credibility and integrity in a court of law?

2. Is Louis van der Vyver a member of the IAI and in that capacity a receiver of this letter?
(The IAI-letter that he posted on this site)

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

4. 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?

5. If the letter was regarded as important information to members of this forum, why did you or the IAI not post the letter? Why leave it up to Louis van der Vyver for posting it here?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. What is your take on Michael Grimm's theory that the wound to Inge Lotz's head was inflicted by a semi-automatic handgun / versus the hammer-blows theory ?

7. Just as a matter of interest. Michael Grimm's theory about the head wounds being made by a handgun: Were his tests also done on a pig's head in similar fashion that it was done with the hammer, and were the results compared with those of the hammer?

8. About Grimm's shocking revelation that Inge Lotz's body was bitten and skin torn from her body (by the murderer's teeth, I presume) and then dropped in the bathroom): Why was this never mentioned in his report during the trial?....or was it?

9. Apparently Michael Grimm spotted both blood and hair on the towel, as well as some other black or dark gray wipe marks, which according to him could have been oil and/or burned powder from a handgun wiped off with the towel? Was this merely speculation or did Mike indeed have the towel examined for residue and firearm oil ? What were the results? If not done, why not?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


If I understand correctly it is your very firm belief that the evidence of fingerprint experts is indeed all about opinion.
Per definition, this is opinion testimony.

My questions:
10. Are lip prints also all about opinion?

11. What are the criteria for identification of a lip print? (opinion ?)

12. Any chance that any other print could wrongly be identified as a lip print ? (opinion?)

About the lip print on Folien 1 in the Inge Lotz-case:

I notice that you and Arie Zeelenberg had some conflicting opinions about the lip print on the said folien. That aside...

13. With how many of the criteria for lip print identification did the lip print on Folien1 comply ? (Still waiting for criteria for lip print identification)

14. Did Arie Zeelenberg also identify exactly the same criteria (markings) than those that you had identified when he studied the lip print ?

15. Taking into account that fingerprint evidence is opinion testimony, would you say the same about lip prints? Would you testify in a court of law that
the lip print on folien1 is indeed (100% certainty) a print made by a person's LIP ?

16. After 8 years this case is still is extremely vivid in the minds of many people. There's still so much speculation and fingerpointig at Fred, although
he was acquitted. Certainly he could lay all this gossip to rest and clear away all suspicions if he would allow his lip print to be compared with the
one on Folien 1. Therefore your educated opinion: Shouldn't Fred just voluntarily have his lip print compared with Folien1 and show the world that
justice had been done ? By the way, why had this not been done in preparation of the trial ? That would've been overwhelming evidence in his
favour.

Pat, you really do not have to go the full narrative way again, because, to be honest, it is quite boring. Just respond in short sentences directly and honestly answering my questions.

Staalburger

I grow weary of reading personal accusations motivated by personal vendettas and written under the guise of professional contribution, so I won't be checking in on this thread again. But I have known Pat Wertheim, Arie Zeelenberg, Bill Bodziak and Mike Grimm for a long time. I do not know Roger Dixon. Pat, Arie, Bill and Mike are individuals with long, distinguished careers, who have consistently displayed the highest professional standards and who have demonstrated admirable personal integrity. I do not know the accusers but I have little regard for those who post in hyperbole. As to fearing any of these gentlemen as an excuse to play hide and seek, I only have one instance in which I know Pat Wertheim took a swing at someone. The results did not instill fear in anyone's heart.

So nice of the learned Mr. David L. Grieve to stand up for his friends, but perhaps he could give friend Pat a call and ask him about his experiment, and the fact that the accused's father was with him when he did his experiments, that he “forgot” the name of a reviewer, that his friend Arie was one the “two” reviewers. Same Arie who would later act alongside him in the same trail. And then he can call Arie and ask hom to explain his sloped lip print theory – and the condensation one – and the loads of other ridiculous experiments and the to ask him who reviewed his report. And then ask Michael about his hand-gun theory. We’ll still get to Bill.

I’m sure all of you go back a long way but that does not change the material facts relating to this specific case, Mr. Grieve. Maybe you should take some time to go through their reports. But, oh ja, he will not be checking in here again. Such a pity.

Those falling back on the old pseudonym story just show how desperate they are. It’s old news. We explained it many times, and the fact that our identities were searched with "some internet sleuthing" and Louis van der Vyver immediately looked us up on Google Earth, proves validation for our concerns.

We went public under our real names and we participate on public forums under our real names, and our findings are there to be reviewed and scrutinised by anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Pat, you and your cohorts can try and shoot us down on anything. Experience, powdered lips, bla bla bla. Come fight us on the facts. Come!

And before you get to comfy behind the IAI’s “ruling” – they cannot produce one single shred of evidence that the PRB ever existed. But your friends in the IAI will only be able to cover for you for so long.

The world will know what you and friend Arie did in this case.

Mr Grieve, how do you feel about Mr Wertheim deliberately deceiving you and other CLPEX members and observers on this forum?

This is what I wrote to Ms Leben – “We initially decided on these random pseudonyms to protect our identities during our investigation phase (..) and we wanted to limit the possibility of intimidation – as this is a highly contested case. [..]

Then I mentioned how some of the respondents must have contacted Fred’s lawyer in South Africa and then about the subsequent aggressive interest that was shown in our investigation is SA, before concluding:

“If our real names were known at this stage we would be very concerned for our safety. We may very well become the object of intimidation.”

This is what Mr Wertheim want everyone to believe I said:

"They said they had used aliases and forged false signatures because they were “in fear” for their safety from me and the others named in the complaint. They were not clear on how they thought we were going to hurt them."

I used the word “pseudonym” not “alias”. I did not admit to forging a signature. I did not use the words “in fear” – I did not say that we fear Wertheim or the other two respondents specifically , nor did I say that the three of them may ‘hurt’ me. It is clear that we were rather concerned about intimidation from those in South Africa. I agree it is quite a ridiculous notion to fear that Wertheim et al. would actually hurt us. That has never been a concern.

Don’t you think that Mr Wertheim’s rendition has somewhat of a different ‘flavour’ and ‘colour’ and it is not an entirely truthful version of my communications with the IAI? Ask him why he blatantly misquoted me – “in fear” . Don’t expect an honest answer.

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.