Questions about the legitimacy of documents are probably as old as documents themselves. Here are some interesting cases in questioned document history, followed by a bibliography for interested readers.
In 1795 a Mr. Ireland brought forward what he claimed to be a new version of "Kynge Leare" which was allegedly written by William Shakespeare himself. In 1796, Edward Malone published a refutation of this document. Mr. Malone had discovered that the questioned manuscript contained pages with twenty different watermarks. He reasoned that an author of Shakespeare's caliber who was also famous and affluent at the time Lear was written, would have gone to a papermaker and secured as much paper of one type as was needed for his work. But someone who wanted to forge an Elizabethan play 200 years later would ferret out such scraps of old paper as he could - from the flyleaves and blank pages of old manuscripts. Indeed, in 1805 the forger wrote his confession and admitted that he had done exactly that. He had paid a bookseller to let him cut out blank pages from the older volumes in his shop.
Many questioned document cases are proven on evidence other than handwriting examination. For example, in 1928 there was a famous case known as the Duke "Lost Heirs Case" which was tried in Somerville, NJ. A family Bible was introduced inscribed with the birth dates of children of the family. The mother claimed that she wrote the dates in the Bible shortly after the birth of the children in 1887 and 1889. However, careful examination of the Bible itself showed that it was copyrighted in 1890, invalidating the timing claimed by the mother.
A document examiner must be relentlessly thorough in considering all aspects of a document. In the 1920's the Oliver Will case was tried in White Plains, New York. The question revolved around the date on which the will was written. A legal form which had the date and name and address of its printer at the top was used for the will, but a piece of the document which showed the date had been torn away. There were two possibilities for the date of the form - January 8, 1924, or October 8, 1924. The date of the alleged will was September 20, 1924, so the only form that could have been used was the one printed earlier in the year. Upon close examination it was found that in tearing away the dated portion of the form, the tail of the comma in the address was still visible, and the position on the paper of that comma tail proved that the form could not have been the January 8th form. The questioned will was therefore written on a form that did not exist on the date it was allegedly prepared.
Early in 1972 a Federal Grand Jury heard the testimony of a Questioned Document Examiner from the Crime Laboratory of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service regarding questioned documents allegedly written by Howard R. Hughes. In these documents permission was granted for a biography of Mr. Hughes to be written by Clifford Irving. Mr. Irving had used these questioned documents to convince the editors of McGraw-Hill Book Co. and Life Magazine that he had a deal with Mr. Hughes - an allegation hotly contested by Howard Hughes when he learned of it.
The testimony of the experts from the Postal Inspection Service was that the questioned documents were not written by Mr. Hughes. Often in forgery cases it is possible to conclude that the alleged author of a document did not do the writing, but it is more difficult to conclude that a particular person did do it. This is because the writing habits of the forger will often be buried in the attempt to simulate the pictoral look and style of the "target" writing. However, in this case, there was a large amount of writing in question. Mr. Irving had even had "Mr. Hughes" write a letter to the editors of Mc-Graw Hill to validate his agreement with Mr. Irving. The volume of questioned writing was enough that Mr. Irving was not able to keep up his "disguise" and his own individual writing characteristics showed through the veneer of the simulated "Hughes" writing.
My own first brush with famous documents came with a case in 1992. I was asked to verify the authenticity of an alleged original copy of The Declaration of Independence. An elderly Southern gentleman had purchased an old trunk and found this document with its contents. He was quite insistent that I travel to his home to see the document, and I prepared myself to do so. He was not willing to send me a photocopy, and I was not sure whether the answer to the problem would come from handwriting evidence, paper or ink analysis, or historical information, so I gathered information on all of the above. From the history department at a local University I learned about the various stages of preparation of the famous document. There were "broadsides" printed and posted before the actual document was signed, and various copies prepared on different dates were signed in stages by the Representatives. There were slight changes in wording in some editions of the document. There were also commemorative editions of the Declaration printed in various formats in the years just after the Revolution. Actually, there are still such editions printed today. I hoped that by understanding the history of the actual document, I could look at the questioned document and make some preliminary decisions about it.
I am neither an ink nor paper chemist, and I did some networking to locate such experts who would be willing to work with me if my preliminary examination indicated that the document had a chance of being authentic. I also spoke with archivists who helped me secure additional comparison signatures of the people whose names I expected to see signed on the document. When the time for the trip came, I felt as prepared as possible to do at least a preliminary investigation and then to route the document to additional experts for non-destructive testing.
I reached my destination via plane and rental car, checked into a hotel, and arranged to meet with my client. This document had become a focal point of the lives of this man and his family. If it were genuine it would have great value, and there was a question of pride involved as well. Unfortunately, it did not take long for me to shatter their fondest hopes. A careful look through the microscope revealed that the printing process used on the document was not available in the late 1700's. The signatures were not done individually in ink as the owner of the document had insisted they were. My final conclulsion, which was later borne out by a paper expert, was that at best the document was one of many sets printed commemoratively in 1876 at the Centennial celebration of the Revolution. This would set its value at approximately $100.00 according to a consultant at a famous auction house. My client was very disappointed, but glad to have the matter resolved. I was also disappointed, but not surprised. I was glad to have had the impetus to learn more about American history and to feel close to it for a brief time.
On Labor Day weekend, 2004, I was asked by a producer at the CBS Television program 60 Minutes, to examine some sensitive documents for possible use on an upcoming program. After reaching agreement on the fee, timeframe, and parameters, I learned that the documents involved the National Guard records of President George Bush, who was running for re-election at that time.
The documents arrived on Sunday, via courier. They were copied and faxed documents, and the reproduction quality was poor. I found several potential problems with the questioned signatures of Jerry Killian, and with the printed characters and formatting in terms of their alleged dates in the early 1970's. I prepared an illustrated comparison of the known and questioned handwriting and emailed it to the producer. I researched the machine printed characteristics I had noted to learn more about their earliest date of production. Sunday afternoon I discussed my observations with the 60 Minutes producer, and explained that the questions I had could not be answered from the poor quality reproductions available, and that without "positive" resolution of those questions it would not be possible to support the documents. I also suggested a typwriter expert who could be consulted for more information on the issue of typewriter chronology. The producer indicated that more documents would be available in the next 24 hours, and that they would be sent to me.
The program was scheduled to air on Wednesday, September 8. Having received no additional documents and no further communication from CBS by the evening of the 7th, I phoned the producer and restated my concerns about the documents. I learned that the episode was going forward, and I expressed the opinion that if the documents were presented as authentic, that all of the questions I was raising were going to be raised by other document examiners immediately after the program. This is exactly what happened. What I did not forsee was all of the commentary that would come from "the blogosphere."
For 10 days after the broadcast, 60 Minutes continued to defend the documents, and to imply that they had thoroughly vetted the documents with various document examiners. Eventually I was directly asked by a reporter at ABC Television whether I had seen the documents. I explained my participation to the reporter, which led to further explaining it on national television. When the dust settled, and an independent investigation was ordered, I explained it yet again to the investigators.
From a document examinater's point of view, the lessons to be learned from this experience are:
1. Poor quality documents lack the detail necessary to reach a reliable opinion.
2. The burden of proof is usually on the proponent of a document. A journalist relying
on a document in an investigative report should have the answers to any reasonable
questions about the handwriting/machine printing of that document.
Bibliography
Questioned Documents Second edition, Albert S. Osborn, reprinted 1973 by Patterson Smith Publishing Company Montclair, NJ
Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, Ordway Hilton Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc. New York, NY 1984
"The Clifford Irving Hoax of the Howard Hughes Autobiography", R.A. Cabanne Journal of Forensic Sciences 20 (1975):5-17
"The Document Evidence and Some Other Observations About the Howard R. Hughes 'Mormon Will' Contest" John J. Harris, B.S. Journal of Forensic Sciences Vol. 31, No. 1, January 1986:365-75
Copyright © 2001-2008 Emily J. Will All Rights Reserved.