Website Suggestion

[Ahanu]

"Certainly the most significant shortcoming of handwriting analysis as a science is the fact that it is ultimately subjective. This means that its acceptance in the scientific community and as evidence in court has historically been shaky. Only recently, as the training of analysts has become more standardized and certification procedures have been put in place, has handwriting analysis started to gain more acceptance as a reproducible, peer-reviewed scientific process. The results of a handwriting comparison are still not always accepted as evidence in a court case, partly because the science has a few more hurdles to clear, including determining a reliable error rate in analysis and setting standards for the comparison process."

HowStuffWorks "Shortcomings of Handwriting Analysis"

[Ahanu]

The analysis of handwriting has been and remains recognized by the courts as a valuable forensic tool. That you dreg up a quotation to the contrary doesn't change that fact.

He declared it a forgery in 1930. google "Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell

Handwriting analysis does not determind the Will and Testament is a forgery, however! The proof has been posted. Your point about Ainsworth Mitchell saying the Will and Testament is a forgery does not determine it is. That's my point.

Later.

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

...I would like to see your sources to support your claims.

Already given it to you but like Shoghi Effendi you're trying to ignore it.

Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Abdu'l-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

An Analysis of Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant
Comments on Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

Ruth White. Abdul Baha's Questioned Will and Testament.
Beverly Hills: White, 1946.
http://www.reformbahai.org/WhiteABQWT.pdf

Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell. Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha. 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
http://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

I invite readers to consider a book by another Bahai who came basically to the same conclusion:

Hermann Zimmer, A FRAUDULENT TESTAMENT Devalues the Bahai Religion Into Political Shoghism. World Union for Universal Religion and Universal Peace, Free Bahais, 1973.
http://reformbahai.org/images/Herman..._Testament.pdf

As Ruth White observed, the overwhelming burden lied with Shoghi Effendi and his criminal family to prove the so-called "will and testament" was legitimate. He couldn't because it was false, and he knew it. So he resorted to slandering Ruth White and all of the early Bahais who realized he was departing from the teachings of Abdul-Baha, in his attempt to create a Shiite imamate, though using the Western sounding "administration," while the function remained, and remains, the same.

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by Ahanu

Your point about Ainsworth Mitchell saying the Will and Testament is a forgery does not determine it is. That's my point.

Shoghi Effendi saying, and your saying, and every Haifan Baha'is since Shoghi saying, does not determine that it isn't a forgery. All the hearsay in the Haifan Baha'i tradition does not prove it's not a forgery.

That's why courts don't rely on hearsay. They probate and authentic will and testaments, unlike the bogus one Haifans call a "covenant."

[arthra]

Courts generally try cases Frederick and make decisions..this "case" has never gone to trial. Until it does using terms like "criminal" makes you the jury and judge.

[radarmark]

Let me add something. While handwriting analysis is scoffed at by the "scientific" and "legal" communities at this juncture, it wsa not at the time of the analysis. But that is besides the point, as I understand it the issue was not identifying the hand writing as not being that of Abdul-Baha, but rather that is was a composite of several handwirings. Forgive me, that is a different keettle of fish. Much easier to see, verify and objectify. If that is true (as I read the Mitchell deposition), if this had gone to court there would have been a pretty clear outcome.

Please note I am not saying anything about what is true or false, so please do not jump on me. Using the term criminal is NBD... Hitler was a criminal, the kid who broke intoo my house was a criminal. Criminality is not the sole responsibility of the legal system, if you believe that do you think that criminal prodedures get to the truth or inforce what is right? It is rather an imperfect system we try to refine and better.

Whether or not the case went to court or not any objective, rational individual can (and is entitled to) judge the criminality of the action (before you reply, remember Hitler). Now as for the truth of the matterl, I don't know. But juding from objective material from academic sources the burden of proof is clearly the Bahai's (the Haifa-UCJ, NSA type). Why? There are just too many objective sources indicating some divergence from the texts of the Bahá'u'lláh. P.S. this is nothing so bad, I feel the same way about the majority of professed Quakers.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by radarmark

Let me add something. While handwriting analysis is scoffed at by the "scientific" and "legal" communities at this juncture, it wsa not at the time of the analysis. But that is besides the point, as I understand it the issue was not identifying the hand writing as not being that of Abdul-Baha, but rather that is was a composite of several handwirings. Forgive me, that is a different keettle of fish. Much easier to see, verify and objectify. If that is true (as I read the Mitchell deposition), if this had gone to court there would have been a pretty clear outcome.

Please note I am not saying anything about what is true or false, so please do not jump on me. Using the term criminal is NBD... Hitler was a criminal, the kid who broke intoo my house was a criminal. Criminality is not the sole responsibility of the legal system, if you believe that do you think that criminal prodedures get to the truth or inforce what is right? It is rather an imperfect system we try to refine and better.

Whether or not the case went to court or not any objective, rational individual can (and is entitled to) judge the criminality of the action (before you reply, remember Hitler). Now as for the truth of the matterl, I don't know. But juding from objective material from academic sources the burden of proof is clearly the Bahai's (the Haifa-UCJ, NSA type). Why? There are just too many objective sources indicating some divergence from the texts of the Bahá'u'lláh. P.S. this is nothing so bad, I feel the same way about the majority of professed Quakers.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt. Radarmark

You're quite right that according to the British Museum document expert,

“That is to say, the writing does not agree with the hypothesis that it was all written by one person.”

“A minute comparison of the authenticated writing with the writing on every page of the alleged will . . . has failed to detect in any part of the will the characteristics of the writing of Abdul-Baha, as shown in the authenticated specimens.” -- Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, 1930.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

Had the case gone to court in 1930, what people know of as the "Baha'i Faith" would be very different today.

All jumping aside, I didn't mention Hitler nor do I think the comparison apt. It is a crime in all Western jurisdictions to pass off a fraudulent will and last testament, depriving the rightful heirs of their inheritance. That the crime went unadjudicated does not mean it went undetected, by Ruth White, Dr. Mitchell, and others, while it's ramifications continue to disrupt the Faith of Baha'u'llah even to today. Often in this world it has taken many decades for justice to win out over evil.

I do agree with your conclusion. There are indeed many indications of wrong-doing surrounding the purported will and testament and its divergence from everything Abdul-Baha said and did in public and private throughout his ministry, as Ruth White indicates in her books. The burden of proof was placed squarely on Shoghi Effendi by Ruth White and Dr. Mitchell. Shoghi Effendi's response was to evade and avoid, as the letters Ruth White deposited at The Library of Congress clearly documented, especially the two following Mitchell's Report:

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
http://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the issues involved.

[radarmark]

I know you didn't mention Hitler. It's just that using a term like "criminal" is not the sole responsibility of the loegal system. H is just the best example of someone anyone would agree to call "criminal" regardless of what the legal system says (he never was found guilty of anything after Munichen).

TO ALL INVOLVED: if the use of "hitler" is over the top, please forgive me, I am new at this sort of thing. There was no inference of any kind trying to tie any of this discussion to Hitler.... it was just a verbal shorthand as explained above.

My Bad!

[radarmark]

P.S. great website (the pdf). I could only find bits and pieces.

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by radarmark

P.S. great website (the pdf). I could only find bits and pieces.

No problem in my view regarding H... I understand you were just being illustrative.

Yes, in terms of the PDF, all the documents that Ruth White deposited with the Library of Congress in 1931 or '32 are included this single PDF file:

Ruth White Collection, Library of Congress, 1930
http://reformbahai.org/images/WhiteLCDocs.pdf

Much of the evidence of the imposition of a false will and testament upon the Bahai Cause is contained in these documents, along with Ruth White's books, and some other documentary information, especially the Star of the West volumes prior to his death and his 1912 Address Upon the Covenant, available here on the Interfaith Bahai Forum:

Abdul-Baha's 1912 Authentic Covenant

[arthra]

Radar wrote:

There are just too many objective sources indicating some divergence from the texts of the Bahá'u'lláh. P.S. this is nothing so bad, I feel the same way about the majority of professed Quakers.

My comment:

And we know this how? Provide examples please.

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by radarmark

P.S. great website (the pdf). I could only find bits and pieces.

I'm not sure what you mean by "bits and pieces." All Documents Deposited by Ruth White at the Library of Congress are now also in text format on this page:
Ruth White

The PDF copy is the same link, available from the Ruth White page.

Incidentally, Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell's Report is now also available in text format at http://reformbahai.org/CAMitchell_Report.html

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by arthra

Radar wrote:

There are just too many objective sources indicating some divergence from the texts of the Bahá'u'lláh....

My comment:

And we know this how? Provide examples please.

As Ruth White wrote, on June 5th, 1931, to the High Commissioner of Jerusalem, Palestine,

"Your report that the photographs examined by the handwriting expert to whom I submitted these (Dr. Mitchell) have been verified as accurate reproductions of the original document, in conjunction with the report of Dr. Mithcell make a prima facie case of fraud against those who have used this alleged will as a basis of soliciting money from the public, and you will hence recognize the necessity of further action on your part."

In my view, Radarmark is quite right, "There are just too many objective sources indicating some divergence...." That's essentially what "prima facie" means, sufficient legal evidence to indicate a basis necessitating further investigation.

Readers might want to reflect carefully on the nature and claims of a religious denomination that evades and denies such conclusions and evidence for well 80 years, including slandering and attempting to discredit a widely recognized forensic expert such as Dr. Mitchell.

[arthra]

Well Ruth your "report" to the High Commissioner of Palestine all those years ago has little to do in my view with what Radar had posted and what I was asking him about..."...too many objective sources indicating some divergence from the texts of the Bahá'u'lláh."

[Ruth White]

Originally Posted by arthra

Well Ruth your "report" to the High Commissioner of Palestine all those years ago has little to do in my view with what Radar had posted and what I was asking him about..."...too many objective sources indicating some divergence from the texts of the Bahá'u'lláh."

The Report was written by Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, not Ruth White. A full text transcription is now available at Dr. C. (Charles) Ainsworth Mitchell's Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdul-Baha. 1930. Certified Copy from the Library of Congress.
Dr. C. Ainsworth Mitchell, Report on the Writing Shown on the Photographs of the Alleged Will of Abdu'l-Baha

"all those years ago"
The truth doesn't age or become out of date; that's why it's the truth, no matter how many people are deceived into falsehood.

I've carefully reread Radarmarks' comments:

"But juding from objective material from academic sources the burden of proof is clearly the Bahai's (the Haifa-UCJ, NSA type). Why? There are just too many objective sources indicating some divergence from the texts of the Bahá'u'lláh."
Website Suggestion

I believe what he said was quite clear, and I believe I responded clearly to him. I'll leave it to Radarmark to correct me, if he thinks I misconstrued his meaning, which was basically that there are reasons for the "burden of proof" lying upon Baha'is of the Haifan persuasion.

That perspective is reminiscent, even essentially the same, as Ruth White's statement that the burden of evidence constituted a "prima facie" case for further legal scrutiny.