Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman
Not really, Scott. We lawyer types call that "chain hearsay" and it has no value in court because it is not eyewitness evidence of anything.
|
Adam, that is exactly why this:
"The "Shoeless Joe Jackson" written on the lower portion of the page was written by the collector to identify who signed it."
and this:
"In the signed book, why was the "e" erased and rewritten? Because Joe didn't like the "e" he had signed, erased it, and signed it again. A forger would have to be real dumb to erase a letter and rewrite it. Why was the pressure heavy? Because he hardly ever used a pen and wanted to make sure his signature looked good."
bother me so much. This information, if firsthand, would be valuable. Otherwise, not so much. Yet it came out very quickly in response to doubts about the item. Firsthand is provenance. Anything else in my book is 'legend'. I have no quarrel (although I understand if others may) if it can be used to support any findings of
fact. I have a big problem if it is used to attempt to
prove a fact.