Re: It is impossible for any woman or man to accept Shoghi Effendi's Guardianship without accepting the Authority of the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-Baha'.


"Nosrat" <Nosrat@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1fxDf.231649$V7.71106@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I did not have any doubt about the authenticity of the Master?s Will and
> Testament and I became more certain when I compared the sacrad documents
> with the photo copies of the Master?s writings and signatures I had in my
> possession. Also I studied and examined C. Ainsworth Mitchell?s report.
> (who lived during the period 1862-1948) and the following is the result:

Do note that your opinon is not that of an expert. The objective of a
forgery is to deceive and fool. You are committed to the idea that this
document is genuine - you cannot take an objective view thereof. You want
to believe it is true - that makes you an ideal target for a forger. I
really don't care one way or the other. For the avoidance of doubt, I accept
Mitchell's report as that of an expert in his field. The only way he can be
disproved is by another expert in the field. That the document has not been
forensically examined is compelling circumstantial evidence that its
provenance is suspect, at the very least.

>> She tried to get the photographs in the book examined by experts in
>> America
> but her request was rejected. After trying for nearly two years, she
> decided
> to look somewhere else for assistance and decided that the best place to
> do
> so would be in England. She was a rich woman and was able to persuade Mr.
> C. Ainsworth Mitchell to examine the photographs.

Mitchell took on the task. That she was rich meant that she could pay the
fee that he doubtless charged for his work - her wealth however did not buy
his opinion.

> 2-The report of C, Ainsworth Mitchell.
>
> I found out that the report was dated June 3rd 1930, i.e. seventy-five
> years
> ago. The first thing which came to mind is that, in despite of the
> advanced
> scientific technology that exists today, and even with digital technology
> at
> our finger tips, the reliability of hand-writing analysis remains under
> question, ( A Mr Kohli has presented URLs to some related arguments and
> court cases) and therefore this analysis, made seventy-five years ago on
> the
> basis of comparing some photographs of Persian writings, cannot be
> considered reliable.

The evidence of handwriting experts has been upheld in UK Courts for many
years now, in both criminal and civil proceedings. The normal procedure
here is for both prosecution and defence to instruct their own experts. The
reports are exchanged and the experts meet to resolve any differences.
Unresolved differences go before the Court where the experts are subject to
examination and cross-examination.

> A second thought is that under normal circumstances C. Ainsworth Mitchell,
> like his other colleagues, should not have accepted Mrs White?s proposal
> for
> the following reasons:
>
> A- He had no knowledge of the language used in the writings, not even
> knowing the alphabet of the language and possibly not even knowing that
> writings in the Persian language are written from right to left, i.e.,
> opposite from English, and he certainly would have lacked knowledge of the
> different styles of Persian writings.

This is a speculation on your part . Mitchell had done work for the British
Museum; London was the centre of an Empire with extensive possessions and
interests in the East - do you really think that he knew nothing about
Eastern script? In the alternative do you think he, an eminent expert, was
so short of work that he would take on a job for which he was not qualified?

> B- He did not have access to the original documents, which therefore made
> chemical examination of the paper, ink and pen strokes impossible.

Something that he acknowledges in his report. Obviously he is an honourable
man not seeking to deceive. He does however not consider that these will
prevent his coming to an opinion.

> C-The date of the writings was unknown to him.

Hardly! The last date for them was 1921 and I'm sure that in her
instructions Mrs White gave him such information as she had that would allow
of their being connected to within a few years, all that is needed, of their
composition.

> D-The documents presented to him as the authentic writings of Abdu?l-Baha
> were only photographs.

As was the Alleged W&T - looks like he was comparing like with like.

> Usually a proper examination report of a document initially supplies some
> information about the document to be examined such as the appearance and
> shape, number of pages, the language of the document, size of the paper,
> format and style of the writing etc. The C. Ainsworth Mitchell report
> lacks
> information even about the difference between Part One and the two other
> parts. (Abdu'l-Baha wrote Part one of His Will and Testament in full
> page
> while He wrote part Two and Three in two columns). This sacred document is
> comprised of nine pages while the report talks about pages nine & ten.

He was examining photographs, not the document. I would consider opinion
based on other than what was in the photographs to be extraneous and outwith
his remit. From his POV there may well have been no material difference
between Part 1 and 2.

> C. Ainsworth Mitchell in his report states that ?A comparison of the four
> signatures on the envelope of the alleged will with the four authenticated
> signatures reveals many striking differences in the mode of formation of
> the
> characters.? Mrs. White in her book has printed the photographs of the
> memorial writing of Abdu?l-Baha in the Bible of the Unitarian Church at
> Montclair N. J. and also his memorial writing in the Bible of the City
> Temple, London that she submitted to C. Ainsworth Mitchell. As everybody
> can
> see, the first one ends with the initials of the Master, while the second
> one ends with the printed name of the Master and even those who are not
> familiar with Persian writings can realise the difference between the
> initials and the printed name.

I fear you do not understand the techniques of handwriting analysis - it is
not the characters that are examined but the way in which they are written.
Handwriting is distinctive and unique - just like the various styles adopted
by artists. Now if a Van Gogh or Da Vinci can be forged (as to fool
experts) why can handwriting not be forged as to fool non-experts?

Mrs White in her book didn?t print the
> photographs taken from letters to Mrs Stannard. Also she did not print the
> other photograph of Mrs. Devine?s letter.
> As I do not have access to these photographs of the letters to Mrs.
> Stannard
> and Mrs. Devine I can?t say that they are signed by Abdu?l-Baha or not but
> from the writings of Mrs. White it is understood that they are not hand
> writings of the Master. In most cases, Abdu?l-Baha had written his
> initials
> on letters to individuals and possibly these letters are falling in the
> same
> category but something which is very obvious is that the two major
> documents
> in which the photographs were used for the preparation of the report do
> not
> have the signature of the Master (one is initialled and in the other his
> name is simply written). Even if the three letters in the possession of
> Mrs. Stannard and Mrs. Devine had the signature of Master (which I doubt,
> and consider a zero possibility) there could not be four authentic
> signatures, for as C. Ainsworth Mitchell states in his report: ?A
> comparison
> of the four signatures on the envelope of the alleged will with the *four*
> authenticated signatures reveals many striking differences in the mode of
> the formation of the characters.?

Read that last sentence very carefully! It disposes of your argument in
toto.

> 1- C. Ainsworth Mitchell?s report, as he himself has admitted, is not a
> scientific examination, and due to the above reasons discussed above lacks
> any credibility.

Where did he say it was not scientific?

> 2- The handwriting, signature, style of writing and style of expression in
> ?Abdu?l-Baha?s Will and Testament is the same as found in His other
> Tablets
> and writings and this is quite obvious to Iranian Baha?is.

Few of whom saw the original but also worked from photographs.

> 3- Such possible unauthentic claimants to be beneficiaries of the Will and
> Testament as Muhammad-Ali, Badi?u?llah and Ahmad Sohrab did not
> questioned
> the authenticity of the Will and Testament since they recognized its
> authenticity

Or were taken in by it.

The milieu in which Mitchell worked was the jurisprudence of English law.
He was an expert witness governed by the following code of conduct: -

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/1998/1176.html

per Otton LJ

The role of an expert witness was recently considered by Cresswell J in the
case of The "Ikarian Reefer" [1993] 2 Ll. L Rep 68. At pp 81 - 82 (citations
omitted), he said:

?1. Expert evidence presented to the Court should be, and should be seen to
be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to form or content
by the exigencies of the litigation.



2. An expert witness should provide independent assistance to the Court by
way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his
expertise. An expert witness in the High Court should never assume the role
of an advocate.



3. An expert witness should state the facts or assumption upon which his
opinion is based. He should not omit to consider material facts which could
detract from his concluded opinion.



4. An expert witness should make it clear when a particular question or
issue falls outside his expertise.

....

6. If, after exchange of reports, an expert witness changes his view on a
material matter having read the other side's expert's report or for any
other reason, such change of view should be communicated (through legal
representatives) to the other side without delay and when appropriate to the
Court?.

I think that when you read Mitchell's report, written long before, you'll
find it more than lives up to this Code. I would draw your attention in
particular to 4. and invite you to consider it in terms of the speculation
that he was unfamiliar with Persian script or that if he was unfamiliar that
it was a factor that would prevent his forming an opinion.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: It is impossible for any woman or man to accept Shoghi Effendis Guardianship without accepting t
    ... Also I studied and examined C. Ainsworth Mitchell?s report. ... >> C. Ainsworth Mitchell to examine the photographs. ... >> basis of comparing some photographs of Persian writings, ... >> the authenticity of the Will and Testament since they recognized its ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Re: It is impossible for any woman or man to accept Shoghi Effendis Guardianship without accepting t
    ... You displayed this report around six months ago as well. ... with the photo copies of the Master?s writings and signatures I had in my ... Also I studied and examined C. Ainsworth Mitchell?s report. ... She tried to get the photographs in the book examined by experts in America ...
    (talk.religion.bahai)
  • Childrens profile report
    ... sub-report, which contains the photographs, is a snaking report giving ... The heading and explanation need to be full width so can't be included ... allow the snaking photos in the KUW section to be interrupted, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.reports)
  • Re: Childrens profile report
    ... sub-report, which contains the photographs, is a snaking report giving ... allow the snaking photos in the KUW section to be interrupted, ...
    (microsoft.public.access.reports)
  • Re: Replicating sentences
    ... The number of photographs varies from report to report. ... seperate file is generated purely on a cut and paste basis and edited to ... This reply is posted in the Newsgroup; please post any follow question or reply ...
    (microsoft.public.word.docmanagement)