the investigator

hey Lance...you forgot to investigate your handwriting expert, dumbass!

here's something I found interesting from the California Association of Criminologists...

it's about Peter Lance's "handwriting expert" James Blanco... it was a letter to the editor of the CAC magazine from Susan Morton, a member of the American Board of Forensic Examiners..and it makes me wonder why Blanco is still allowed in the court room...Judge Hill, are you aware of this? or are you just the dumbest judge in the history of judges?
is the prosecution, the DA or any cop aware of this? is Kasi Beutel aware of this?? it's more evidence against the slimy defense!!

James Blanco: A Cautionary Tale

An ethics case against James Blanco was resolved at the
business meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences
on Feb. 18, 2009. The AAFS membership overwhelmingly
rejected his bid for reinstatement after his expulsion
by the Board of Directors in September 2008. Among his few
supporters, I noted some Criminalists and I understand there
was much discussion of the matter in their section business
meeting. I am writing this in hopes of clarifying the issues.

The AAFS Ethics committee, after extensive investigation
and testimony, found that Mr. Blanco had purposely used an
inapplicable technique on a particular type of problem in order
to mislead a legal proceeding to the benefit of his client.

I was not a party to the complaint or the proceeding so
I was not privy to any confidential information. I am familiar
with the type of problem, the technique he applied, and
with Mr. Blanco himself. I have known him for most of his
career, though we have never worked together. The content
of this article is based solely on that knowledge and a review
of the information posted on the AAFS Members’ page of the
website so that voting members could familiarize themselves
with the issues before considering Mr. Blanco’s appeal.

First let us consider the problem—a line intersection.
Mr. Blanco was asked by his client to determine which came
first, text in inkjet printing or a signature in ballpoint ink. His
client alleged that the inkjet text entry had been placed on the
document after he had signed it.

In November of 2005, James Blanco, a Forensic Document
Examiner in private practice with offices in Los Angeles and
San Francisco, issued a report on a line intersection matter.
His report indicated that he based his findings on IRLum and
visual examination of the back of the paper. He appended a
dramatic IRLum photograph which appeared to show a dark
line on top of a glowing line, knowing that his report would be
used immediately in a settlement hearing. Later in the course
of an ethics investigation, he claimed that he had actually based
his findings on other techniques, but had not had time to list
them in his report. He was unable to recall what they were, and
his meager bench notes did not refer to any other types of examinations.
There is a strong implication that Mr. Blanco based
findings he knew were about to be used in a legal proceeding
on one technique of marginal usefulness and another that had
50% chance of actually being misleading.

The next question is: Did James Blanco knowingly prepare
a misleading report to the benefit of his client?
In order to believe that Mr. Blanco made an innocent
mistake, one must accept the following propositions:
Mr. Blanco managed to remain ignorant of a well-established
and long-known principle of document examination
while working under the supervision of another FDE in an
Accredited laboratory. Mr. Blanco maintained that ignorance
while studying for the rigorous testing he underwent to obtain
ABFDE Certification and the continuing education necessary
to retain it. Mr. Blanco did not read the 16 articles he cited
in his defense against the ethics charges. None of them recommended
IRLum for line intersections problems and some
warned against doing so.

Mr. Blanco slept through, or immediately
forgot the content of, a workshop he paid hundreds of
dollars to attend. The ABFDE workshop on line intersection
problems was held Nov.8-10, 2005; the date of the report in
question was Nov. 11, 2005. Despite his firm belief in the validity
of IRLum for line intersection problems, Mr. Blanco felt
it necessary to defend himself by claiming to have actually
relied upon other techniques, the particulars of which he was
unable to recall or document.

The conclusion that Mr. Blanco knowingly issued a false
report is simply inescapable. He tried to use the excuse that it
was only a “preliminary” report, yet he knew full-well that it
was to be used in a court matter that very day. He appended
to that report a dramatic photograph that appeared to support
his client’s position, fully cognizant that that photograph
might well be misleading. What he did was tantamount to
Photoshopping in a smoking gun.

During his impassioned plea to the membership during
the AAFS business meeting, Mr. Blanco did say something of
note. He looked out into the audience and said, “If they can
do this to me, they can do it to you!” Well, yes, one would
certainly hope so.
Susan Morton, D-ABFDE (American Board of Forensic Document Examiners)

http://www.cacnews.org/news/3rdq09.pdf