Wild Justice Part 10

He got to the appointed restaurant early and asked for the booth reserved for Smith as he had been instructed.

It was amazing how those New York City taxi drivers knew a hole in the wall place like this.

Soon, he was joined by a well dressed, obviously well educated man who ordered drinks for both of them.

"I understand that you have need of our services.

How may we be of help?"

"I need to have some papers forged. It has to be a foolproof forgery that will not be exposed if the papers are examined by a handwriting a.n.a.lyst."

"That will be expensive, but not impossible. We charge by the number of words and the number of papers or doc.u.ments you need." The price of each was then given.

"Whew, that is steep."

"Yes it is. But you want foolproof. Ordinary forgers are a dime a dozen, but we employ only the most expert.

These are people who are trained in doc.u.ment examination.

They know what a doc.u.ment examiner looks for and what tips them off to call something a forgery. For example, if a person is trying to disguise his or her handwriting, they make it bigger, wider, smaller or larger.

"Our forgers, as trained doc.u.ment examiners, look for unique or individualistic handwriting characteristics and make sure these are included in their forgeries. They first find all the characteristics, even the microscopic ones, of the individual's handwriting just as a doc.u.ment examiner does. Then they utilize this knowledge in making a foolproof forgery.

"All this takes time, of course."

"How do you recruit these people? I should think it would be difficult since they work fairly exclusively for attorneys or police, don't they?"

"Well, I certainly can't share our methods but I will remind you that money talks. These people are paid very well for what they do and they know they are protected. I hope you are not so naive that you believe all lawyers and cops are honest!

"They are easy to recruit because they may have worked for years for very little. That's why to get the best, you have to pay for it."

"OK, here's what I need. I was hoping to have a dozen or so of the following messages copied onto these blue forms, but I'm going to have to settle for these three short ones.

"I understand from the man that introduced us that this will never be traced back to me?"

"Correct. I am only a broker. I do nothing criminal--you do nothing criminal. The forger never sees either you or me.

Someone else takes the material to her or him. That's another thing that makes our service so excellent. I will use a former doc.u.ment examiner who is the same s.e.x and about the same age as the person you want blamed for these doc.u.ments.

"Now, the first thing we need is as many examples of this individual's handwriting and printing that you can get your hands on.

We want originals, not copies. However, be sure you make copies since you will not get the originals back. They will be, 'consumed' perhaps is the best word for it, in the forgery process.

Most commercial doc.u.ment examiners will accept copies of standards to work from and this is to our, and your, advantage.

You might get one sharp enough to be suspicious if given enough original standards to compare with our forgeries."

The waiter never came back to bother them. They sat in the secluded booth and planned out the three doc.u.ments to be.

A few weeks later. . ."Mr. Smith? Yes, thank you for returning my call so promptly. Yes, the merchandise was as you represented.

The professionals have authenticated it." He listened briefly, then said, "We are going to need two more. I neglected dates on the previous order and we have to show repet.i.tion of this practice.

"All right. I'll meet you there in one hour with the accessories and balance of payment for the previous order."

After hanging up the phone, he opened his briefcase and extracted a small packet of bright blue, Belmont Student Feedback Forms and a sheet with the typewritten messages that had been created to be forged onto them. He looked to see that the rest of the contents were in place, then returned everything to the briefcase and left the room carrying it.

The doc.u.ment examiner was seated, sworn and proceeded to give her qualifications which were concerned with her training, the number of years in the profession and clients.

Alice Stebbins was quite short. Her features gave her age as around fifty and holding. She dressed severely, in browns and blacks which made her look perky and birdlike. Peering at the hearing panel over her half gla.s.ses enhanced the bird image, but it was destroyed when she opened her mouth.

Her voice, far from a peep-peep one might expect, was deep and strong. She had learned well that when one was giving expert testimony, one presented a confident, a.s.sured bearing.

Further questions from the chair led her through the evidence and she readily identified all but two of the seven 'suspicious' critiques as being written by Trenchant.

Her language was laced with the correctness of one accustomed to giving court appearances. She prefaced much of her testimony with the caveat, 'in my opinion'. Her att.i.tude of selfa.s.suredness belied this qualification.

"Also, in my opinion, those two most probably were written by her.

Certainty was not possible since they contained printing and I was not given enough or recent enough exemplars of Dr. Trenchant's printing."

Using two large easels, she demonstrated various letters and combination of letters photographed and enlarged from the standards or exemplars and from the 'suspect' doc.u.ments.

This kind of testimony was familiar to Janet. She faithfully recorded the words being spoken and knew that standards or exemplars are writing and printing that are authenticated.

That is, that are definitely established to be written or printed by the person in question. Customarily, they are taken in the presence of the doc.u.ment examiner so the examiner can swear to their authenticity.

Using these visual aids, the doc.u.ment examiner pointed out the similarities existing in the way the letters were formed--making her case that the doc.u.ments in question, the 'suspect' SmurFFs, had indeed been written by Trenchant.

Clearly, her presentation was well done and the panel was most engrossed and fascinated by the process she delineated.

The panel was eager to question her further. Like most professionals, they were deeply interested in a discipline they knew very little about.

"Is handwriting a.n.a.lysis reliable?" a.n.u.se knew what her answer would be and wanted to pin this down first, but the question backfired on him.

"Yes," she answered confidently.

The panel ha.s.sled her for specifics. These were researchers who were consistently challenged to prove or disprove their own theories and then defend them. Statistics were their life.

"How have you measured your success rate, what percent of the time have you been right?" They questioned.

"In other words, have the courts accepted my qualifications?"

"No, not qualifications--evaluations. How many times are you right and how many times are you wrong?"

"It isn't looked at that way. The judge or jury look at the whole case, not just your presentation."

"I understand that the courts allow your testimony.

I want to know the percentage of error in your a.n.a.lysis,"

asked Jane Astori, leaning forward.

"None."

"None? Has this ever been calculated?" demanded Esther Rondell.

"No. But there is research going on."

Jane and Esther looked at each other in blank astonishment and then back at the doc.u.ment examiner, disdain and disbelief fighting each other for expression on their faces.