Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service

Jump to Forum

Now I would like your assistance with a statement that bothers me.

From http://www.andruss.net/courtney.htm we read:
"On September 17, 1999, in a Falls County, Texas courtroom, a judge decided not to allow the exhumation of James L. Courtney's body for DNA testing after a forensic scientist proved that the picture of Dianna Courtney-Haun in Mrs. Duke's book had been altered."

I assume that you did not author this statement but hopefully you can influence the one who did, in order to, as you said, "in our joint quest for truth and honesty, you (they) might want to make a correction."

I believe that this statement is highly inaccurate and misleading.

1. The Judge declared that the exhumation was denied because the evidence did not rise to the level to permit it over the wishes of part of the family who did not want it. He never mentioned that Max had proven anything or that this was the reason for denial.

2. Max Courtney is a forensic scientist. That means, according to my dictionary, he is qualified in " the study and application of scientific facts and techniques to legal problems." That is it! Max is not, as far as I know, an expert in photographic analysis. It is highly unusual that he was even allowed to testify as such since he was one of the complainants in the case.

3. Max simply and only presented an argument that the photo in question had been reversed. It was never shown if the photo was absolutely the original or an "original" copy of a tintype. Tintypes do show a reverse image.

4. One more time I will say this next one, hoping I will get a complete response. According to Betty, the Austin (TX) Police Department’s Forensics Multi-Media Lab examined the photo that was supplied by H.C. Shelton and they concluded that it was in the original condition and had not been tempered with. That along with the Visionics photo examination concluded Jesse James and James L. Courtney was the same person. Max did try to discredit the qualifications of the Austin examiners based on hearsay (?). It seems to me, that at worst, they were as qualified or more qualified than Max to render a professional opinion.

I think an unbiased forensic scientist normally would have fairly and ethically dealt with all the evidence and not slanted it to sway opinions. At least that is my opinion.

Thanks for your help in this matter.

David

Followups: No followups yet

http://genforum.genealogy.com/courtney/messages/520.html
Search this forum: Find all of the words Find any of the words	Search all of GenForum: Proximity matching
	Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum