Website Suggestion

Ruth White, your evidence is weak.

Yes, Mitchell declared the Will and Testament a forgery.

However, as has been noted above, Mitchell did not know Persian. This led him to make faulty conclusions (such as thinking the Will and Testament was written by three different people because he did not know it was written over a period of time). If you accept Mitchell's evidence, then why is Shoghi Effendi the only conspirator? Neither is handwriting analysis a surefire method to conclude the Will and Testament is a forgery. You're not standing on concrete ground. Handwriting analysis is questionable.

Also, as Sen notes, Abdu'l-Baha died in November 1921, the time Shoghi Effendi, the alleged conspirator, was studying in Oxford! The Will and Testament was found in Abdu'l-Baha's safe in November. Gasp! Did Shoghi Effendi plot this long before Abdu'l-Baha's death? How did the Will and Testament get in Abdu'l-Baha's safe?
 
Ruth White, your evidence is weak.

Yes, Mitchell declared the Will and Testament a forgery.

However, as has been noted above, Mitchell did not know Persian. This led him to make faulty conclusions (such as thinking the Will and Testament was written by three different people because he did not know it was written over a period of time). If you accept Mitchell's evidence, then why is Shoghi Effendi the only conspirator? Neither is handwriting analysis a surefire method to conclude the Will and Testament is a forgery. You're not standing on concrete ground. Handwriting analysis is questionable.

Also, as Sen notes, Abdu'l-Baha died in November 1921, the time Shoghi Effendi, the alleged conspirator, was studying in Oxford! The Will and Testament was found in Abdu'l-Baha's safe in November. Gasp! Did Shoghi Effendi plot this long before Abdu'l-Baha's death? How did the Will and Testament get in Abdu'l-Baha's safe?

What was weak was Shoghi Effendi's response to Ruth White when she and other early Bahais figured out what his family and he had done. Evading her charge confirmed it. Shoghi Effendi's "evidence" for the authenticity of the purported will and testament was and is the weakest link in the chain of lies, distortions, and half-truths advanced by him and subsequently deceived and brainwashed Baha'is. Ruth White, others, and I have always maintained that it was quite possibly that initially the forgery was the work of his family. Either way, the spurious document is nothing like the teachings of Abdul-Baha, whether in public or private.

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. Mitchell and Ruth White go beyond that.

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
Ruth White

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

NOTE WELL, What's purported to be Abdul-Baha's will and testament has never been probated or authenticated independently of those who were and are its beneficiaries.
 
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.

Don't worry; I can search scholarly sources. I would like to see your sources to support your claims.
 
Also, where is your source for the quote below from Abdu'l-Baha?

"The sun of truth rises in each season from a different point of the horizon—today it is here, yesterday it was there, and tomorrow it will appear from another direction. Why do you keep your eyes eternally fixed on the same point? Why do you call yourselves Christians, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Bahais? You must learn to distinguish the sun of truth from whichever point of the horizon it is shining! People think religion is confined in an edifice, to be worshiped at an altar. In reality it is an attitude toward divinity which is reflected through life."

When I did a search online, a bunch of Reform Baha'i pages pop'd up.
 
"Data from proficiency tests and other examinations suggest that forensic errors are not minor imperfections . . . Handwriting error rates average around 40% and sometimes approach 100%."

Source:

Michael J. Saks and Jonathan J. Koehler. "The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science." Science, New Series, Vol. 309, No. 5736 (Aug. 5, 2005), pp. 892-895

"The writer of a forged signature can be identified from examination of his known handwriting but only under rather special circumstances.
The qualifying portions of this statement may surprise many readers.
There is a rather widespread belief that document examiners can identify
the writer of any forgery from specimens of his handwriting. Unfortunately,
in a great many instances this is far from true. It seems appropriate,
therefore, to consider this problem, paying particular attention
to those cases in which the forger can be identified, but also looking​
into those more common instances when he cannot."

"There are two requirements which must be satisfied before a positive
identification can be made. First of all, the forged signature must have
been written in the natural handwriting of the forger. Signatures for
the most part are short, and even a moderate degree of disguise may
prevent accurate identification of a single specimen. The second condition
is the need for a very large quantity of the forger's known writing. One
or two specimens of his signature alone are virtually useless for solving
the problem. If a large quantity of day to day general writing is not
available, then naturally written request specimens of the forged name
must be obtained. Only under these conditions is identification of the​
forger possible."

"In considering this subject it is only proper to look carefully at the
various pitfalls which confront the examiner when he is called upon to
identify the forger from his handwriting. It has already been stated
that this identification problem is among the most difficult and is a more
frequent source of error than almost any other handwriting problem.
Disregard of the dangers that confront the examiner can easily cause
him to be mistaken. These include:

1. Inadequate standards.

2. A tendency to discount differences as either being representative of disguise or chance variation.

3. An identification based only on general handwriting habits and not upon
individual ones.

4. The influence of the surrounding circumstances, that is, factors which​
have no part in the handwriting identification."

"Let us consider these points briefly.

"Inadequate Standards. With only a very limited amount of known
handwriting the standards may not be truly representative of the suspect's writing habits. This would be especially true if they were written
under unusual writing conditions. Chance variations in these standards
may assume undue importance, causing error in the identification;
while if a larger quantity of known handwriting was available, it would
appear at once that the suspect could not have written the forged signature. More often, though, when the standards are limited the error is
one of not identifying the guilty person. Identification of the forger
from his handwriting requires far greater quantities of handwriting than
are necessary to show that the signature is not genuine,1 and it is always
risky to base an opinion on a rather limited amount of handwriting.
Unless the similarity between the forged signature and the forger's
writing is so great that no significant differences exist, an identification
must be cautiously approached.

Differences Are Disguise. In any fraudulent signature in which no
attempt is made to imitate another's writing, there is always a likelihood
that the writer may attempt to change his own handwriting. In
a signature made up in a large measure of capital letters he can be
quite successful. If the fraudulent signature contains disguise the
chance of his identification is greatly lessened. On the other hand, differences which might be attributed to disguise because of their poor
quality of execution may actually be the natural writing of a writer of
less skill than the present suspect. If there are indications that the
forged signature contains elements of disguise, there is less likelihood
that the forger can be identified, and the conservative and scientific
document examiner may find it necessary to qualify his identification or
refrain from any at all.
General Writing Habits. By far the most common errors in the
identification of the forger arise out of overemphasis of general writing
characteristics which are common to both the suspect's writing and the
forged signature. By general characteristics are meant those writing
habits which are part of a basic writing system or which are modifications
of the system of writing found among so large a group of writers
that they have only slight identification value. These might include an
open top "o" and "a" or a looped "t" form, which occur in many rapid,
careless handwritings. When an unexperienced or unscientific examiner
discounts the differences between the known and forged signature as
disguise and then makes his identification on the basis of three or four
general similarities, error is almost certain. General similarities can
certainly form a part of the basic identification, but there must be a
very unique combination of them and of the individual or personal
writing habits, with no fundamental differences, in order for the identification to be accurate.

Surrounding Circumstances. It is not uncommon for an aggressive
investigator to submit a signature forgery case to the examiner pointing
out evidence other than the handwriting which seems to clearly establish
the suspect's guilt. The investigator will want to detail all of these
extraneous circumstances to show how clear and convincing is this proof.
More than one case is on record in which a person was accused by eyewitnesses of writing a forged signature when it could be shown clearly
from an examination of his handwriting that he did not write it. Furthermore, these findings were subsequently substantiated by the confession of the guilty person.

Extraneous factors which incriminate the suspect have no place in
the document examiner's consideration. He must base his identification
entirely upon the handwriting and those conditions under which it was
written. If he cannot find sufficient similarity between the suspect's
writing and the forged signature for him to make an identification without
the assistance of other evidence, then he has no place as a witness
against the suspect."

Source:

Ordway Hilton. "Can the Forger Be Identified from His Handwriting?" The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Nov. -Dec., 1952), pp. 547-555
 
"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"
 
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.
 
...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/Hermann_Zimmer_A_Fraudulent_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.
 
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."
 
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.:(
 
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
 
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.
 
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!
 
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:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/abdul-bahas-1912-authentic-covenant-14434.html
 
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.:)
 
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
 
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.
 
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."


:)
 
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."
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/251219-post111.html

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.
 
Back
Top