LIBELLERS AND FORGERS.
Gaslight note:
parts of this article were heavily quoted in the
British press, under the title "Detectives of the inkpot,"
but with attribution given to Cassell's Saturday
Journal, [not seen by us].
|
Not only has every man his own peculiar
type of penmanship; he has that style
alone. He is unable to drop it at will and
take up another.
Hence he cannot either disguise his hand
or imitate anybody else's caligraphy well
enough to deceive an expert. Let him
practice as much as he likes, let him be
as careful as he will, some of the marks
of his natural writing will crop out in a
forgery no less than in an assumed hand.
One other fact — and a very curious fact
— about the philosophy of hand writing.
It is this: that a man never writes his
name twice in exactly the same way, or,
in other words, one signature is never a
facsimile of any other. So that if an
expert finds among some genuine signatures
one that corresponds in every detail with
a disputed signature — and such a thing
has happened several times — it is
absolutely certain, first, that the latter really
is bogus; and, second, that he has before
him the very model used by the forger.
All detectives of the inkpot agree that
the discovery of two signatures which, on
being superimposed and held to the light,
are identical, seem as one, is a conclusive
proof that there has been tracing.
Such are the leading principles of the
expert's profession. How are they
applied? In some cases they are not
applied at all.
The paper itself, the stamp, if there is
one, may proclaim a document to be a
forgery. Then the microscope and other
appliances will sometimes show whether
a signature is fraudulent. Swindlers
commonly write a name in pencil and then
ink it over.
If the expert has reason to believe that
this method has been adopted — and it is
not difficult to detect, because, for one
thing, the signature looks duller than the
other writing — he has only to put a drop
of acid on one of the letters, and presto!
the ink disappears, revealing the glistening
plumbago beneath.
But it is practically impossible to
obtain by any mode of tracing a sign manual
that will successfully bear the closest
scrutiny. In following the model, whether
that be a facsimile in pencil or carbon or a
genuine signature held to the light, the
pen hesitates, giving the writing a zig zag
appearance which, although not visible to
the naked eye, can be clearly seen with
the aid of the microscope.
The most useful ally of the expert,
however, is the camera, which has no equal
for showing signs of erasion, correction,
and pen hesitancy.
In one way or another, then, a document
may be pronounced a forgery without any
comparison of writing. Rarely is this so
when the work of a really accomplished
professional penman comes to hand. He
generally practices a signature till he can
imitate it closely enough to deceive any
bank cashier, when he dashes it off at the
foot of a check with greater fluency,
perhaps, than could its owner.
Generally, in dealing with documents
alleged to be bogus, the expert first
satisfies himself whether they are or are
not forgeries, which he finds out by
comparing the admitted writing of the person
by whom they are supposed to have been
written, with that of the documents.
Then, if he is of opinion that the papers
are forgeries, be compares the writing on
them with that of the suspected person or
persons. And this means work — patient,
tedious, trying work.
In fact, an eminent member of the
profession told me that he had examined a
set of documents for a fortnight before he
could find a single clue, and that then he
had "nosed" out something on which to
hang a peg.
In cases of anonymous letter-writing the
method followed by the expert is invariable,
since all that can be done is to
discover similarities between the caligraphy
of the cowardly epistle and that of the
several hands of the persons suspected.
But, as when dealing with forgeries, the
expert usually needs to examine the
documents in cases of this kind very
minutely before he can feel tolerably
confident that he has tracked his man.
"Anonymous writers, when they
disguise their hands," says Chabot, in his
observations on the calligraphy of Junius,
"generally betray themselves in details;
they rarely commit themselves throughout
the writing of an entire word. Hence
opportunities of comparing words become
circumscribed.
"A comparison of letters taken separately
affords not only a much larger field
of observation, but in many cases invites
attention to circumstances under which
particular formations only of certain
letters are employed, thereby pointing out
what may prove to be very distinctive
features of the writing under examination."
As to the actual method in which writings
are compared, experts frequently
have recourse to tracing, which familiarises
them with the characteristics of a
hand. They also go over documents with
rule and compasses, measuring now and
again, and then taking up a pen and writing
a word or a letter that excites suspicion.
Signatures in particular, are often
tested in this way.
Sometimes, for instance, one at the foot
of a will is disputed. Is it or is it not
genuine? It may look rather unlike the
ordinary signature of the testator; it may
even strike some as a rank forgery; but
then it is only to be expected that a man
will sign his will in a more formal manner
than he would a letter or a check. Knowing
this‚ the expert has to examine a
number of the signatures, obtain a sort of
composite one, and then contrast that with
the name as it is written at the foot of the
testamentary document.
When a forgery is to be laid at the door
of its perpetrator, or a writer is to be
convicted, like is compared with like — figures
in the counterfeit or the slanderous epistle
with figures in the admitted writing of
the person suspected, capitals with
capitals, punctuation marks with punctuation
marks, and so forth.
Particular attention is paid to the form
of the ampersand (&), to the manner of
writing "etc.," to the joining of words,
and other details in which a man is likely
to betray himself.
The writing is, in short, examined
microscopically both in a literal and in a
figurative sense, and not even a dot
escapes the keen eyed expert.
