Chemical Reactions from Typewritings
H. E. Cassidy · Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1931-1951) · 1942
The past fifty years have seen our courts often pothered, and at times intrigued, by the spurious typewritten documents in evidence before them. Many were poorly done, others were indifferent, and a few were well executed. Entirely too many of them succeeded in their purposes. As the use of writing machines has grown, fraudulent documents have increased until now they are everyday occurrences. Some of the questions arising are: on what make of machine was the document written; was it written on this particular machine; did this particular person write it; is the writing as old as it purports to be; were all the writings done continuously at the same writing; were all the writings done with the same kind of ribbon? Discovery and demonstration of the facts in such cases are daily accomplishments of document examiners, except those facts resting on whether or not all the typewritings were done with the same ribbon or same kind of ribbon.' The determination of the facts in these instances are always difficult and oftentimes impossible unless there are wide differences in the thread counts,2 or obvious differences in color density.3 If these evidences are unavailable, the conclusions arrived at by the examiner are necessarily based on other things of a non-demonstratable character which forces him to present his evidence in the form of opinion testimony before court and jury. When, in such instances, opposing counsel is armed with an adequate knowledge of typewriters, and is skilled in the art of cross-examination, the subject provides ample opportunities for him to rowel the ribs of the most robust witness.