[UseNet headers trimmed]
[Cited Ken McVay’s <[email protected]> offer to Matt Giwer]
Three comments seem appropriate:
First: Feasability: The analysis is feasible. I talked with a private voice identification firm and they would be able to make the analysis. I have never used them for analysis but they were highly recommended to me by the laboratory that I used to examine questioned documents. They have excellent credentials and have been used by the government and law enforcement bureass in New Jersey. They also have some experience with foreign language identification. In fact, they have been used to verify a speech by Kruschev.
The requirements are simple. They would need a good copy of the Posnan speech (preferably done with a patch cord) and a copy of another speech by him. A known copy from a movie soundtrack would be sufficient if it was of the same quality as the Posnan speech. Transcripts of the sppech would be helpful.
For an effective identification there would have to be a minimum of twenty identical words that could be compared. Since Himmler spoke at Posnan for a considerable amount of time this should be no problem. Since the selection of the words would be at issue and the laboratory does not have a German speaker on staff, one German speaking represenative from each side could assit them..
Second: Price. The price I was quoted was $1,750.00. Which seems a reasonable fee. The document analysis lab I use has a minimum fee of $2,500.00 and goes up from there. Further the first $750.00 would be for a preliminary analysis. If they found that a complete identification could not be done that would be the total fee. The final $1,000.00 would include complete analysis and a final report.
Third. Trust account. There is no need for any special account. Every lawyer must maintain (or have access to) a trust account for the deposit of clients funds. Withdrawals cannot be made from such an account without notice or, depending on the agreement, permission of the client or a court. If Giwer does not trust the account that I maintain or the one our firm maintains either his attorney could hold it or we could name a neutral attorney to do so.
Now we can see whether Giwer really wants to examine the evidence or is just running his mouth in high gear.