At Least the Signature was Genuine
A gentleman who was probably the most respected and ethical roofer in California was accused by another roofer of having reneged on a written contract. The Contractors License Board suspended investigations into the accuser in order to pursue the accused. Mary Lynne Belsher, Attorney at Law, of Modesto, CA, asked me to examine the alleged contract. The Board graciously made the original available to us at their offices in Sacramento.
But first, a very important statement by defendant roofer:
He had said that the signature on the alleged contract appeared to be his, but he was emphatic: "I never signed that contract." A document examiner at California Department of Justice laboratory in Sacramento submitted a report offering proof the signature was genuine, but addressing no other aspect of the document. At the hearing, I testified that his so-called proof actually showed that what was an undisputed signature was almost definitely, by a factor of one in 100,000, a false signature. He did so by offering eight features appearing rarely and independently in a mere eight exemplars. The likelihood of these appearing all together in a ninth genuine signature would be a factor found by multiplying their actual appearance among the eight exemplars. For example, say we had four exemplars and each exemplar had one feature appearing in a fifth questioned signature. If we said they proved the fifth to be genuine, in truth they would prove that the chances of its being genuine are 1/4 X 1/4 X 1/4 X 1/4, which is 1/256.
Examination of the entire document with a transparent grid showed the letterhead, the printed footer and the typed text were all three out of alignment with each other. Examination by magnification showed these same three parts were of different generation photocopies. Examination with specialized light, filters and TV camera showed the handwritten signature, handwritten underline and handwritten date, all in original ink, were written with three different pens. There was other evidence of falsity that the official laboratory of Department of Justice in Sacramento and its highly trained and qualified document examiner had missed.
The defendant was suffering from a brain tumor at the time, and he lost final consciousness right after learning that his innocence had been upheld upon appeal by the Attorney General's office from the finding in his favor by the Administrative Law Judge.
In favor of the accuser and the State, we must concede that at least the signature was genuine, since the document was fabricated from an original that had been cleaned of all but its signature.
The moral? Never to be in awe of or surrender to the mere word of law enforcement experts.