>>3162162 previous

Reasonable approach. The principles of forensics applied nicely.

Questions now arise:

1. If a letter of this sort (not this one in particular) was written by the alleged victim, what would be the significant difference in such a letter having been penned by a lawyer?

My stab at an answer is not legalistic but political: the individual who put words to the letter may be a lawyer but not acting as a lawyer for a client (i.e. for the alleged victim, the accuser). This person has taken down what the accuser has said -- in an interview or in correspondence -- and summed it up; then re-vised as a letter to a politician's office.

The content has been reworked, if my read is correct, and more than one author has had a hand. Yes, perhaps including the accuser herself.

Dirty politics, victim ideology, and hustle/blackmail have combined in a sort of alchemy of our times. There is a sense of combining more than one individual's experience -- whether first or second-hand -- into a composite accusation against a convenient target.

1. The voice of the accuser has not been heard directly in this current process. If she is authentic -- the name matches real IDEN and such -- then, given the background on her education and job(s), her voice, as it were, would be established prior to the release of this letter. That would make for comparison.

One's voice does evolve, over time, but there will be telltale signs of individuality.

Anons, please continue to apply the seven principles of forensic science.

Thank you, Baker.

>>3162664 old bread

>Lisa Page, who wrote a memo about that meeting, told the Daily Beast she took the secret taping comment seriously?

Page is now communicating directly with reporters?

Her role may be developing into that of the anti-RR insider (inside the old RR team, that is).

>>3163655

Important clarification. My take on her video in which she addressed DiFi's hypocrisy.

>>3163699

>>3162466 old bread

Thanks. From a legal perspective, that would be very significant.

I get the sense from the content of the letter (apart from the formatting and the other important bits and bobs) that more than one author put this together.

Such as: one to repeated what was said by the accuser; one to sum-up or outline; one for re-ordering to make the story understandable; and so forth.

Not necessarily all lawyers.

Your analysis does suggest at least there is a lawyer at the table or in the email group who made a contribution.

Could you provide an example of how a lawyer would write such a letter, on the up and up, so we can make a comparison?

Cheers

>>3163705

Excellent lead, Anon.

>>3163832

That is an example of pre-emptive or anticipatory forensic science. Heh.

The political lens is so jaded that optics now means making the truth obscure.