The Expert Ambush By Marcel Matley

In many western movies a wagon train moves across the prairie. Success looms just over the horizon, when suddenly they are ambushed by Indians. The wagons circle in a desperate fight against all odds. One brave fellow breaks out to make a run to the fort, which fortunately is just across the hills in the next valley. In the nick of time before all hope fades, and just in time for dinner if not afternoon tea, the cavalry arrives with flags flying and bugles blaring. But this is not a movie; this is your court case. It is 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff rested yesterday. You have a short, sweet and devastating defense. You are leading your defendant-client to the trails end of litigation: success over plaintiffs assertion that your client signed this $100,000 lease on a chicken hutch. In stately order your client and sundry other witnesses cumulatively prove that: 1, defendant was out of town the day the document was purportedly signed (he has signed and dated charge slips to prove it); 2, defendant (as his mother assures the court) never wrote that way; and 3, defendant never even did any business with plaintiffs firm (per plaintiffs exemployee). Each of your witnesses is unscathed by cross-examination. You rest. It is almost 10 a.m., so the judge takes the morning break. Upon re-convening, plaintiff attorney says: "Your Honor, I have one witness in rebuttal." Your opponent knew your defense would be denial of the signature. He knew you had a line of witnesses to impeach his only witness, plaintiff himself. He had to have planned this all along. When the judge says, "Call your rebuttal witness," he says: "Plaintiff calls Mr. Q.D. Expert who will testify to the authenticity of the lease signature." The expert ambush is sprung. Your wagon train goes into panic. Defendant, defendants mother, all your people are asking you what is going on. Worst of all, you have never faced that brand of expert before. You immediately make every possible objection you can recall since the first day of law school, no matter how remotely applicable it is. The judge brushes them all aside, assuring you of a fair opportunity to cross-examination, his rebuttal witness will finish by lunch, thus arguments can proceed at 1:30 as both parties and the court had anticipated. Somehow you do not find all this assurance reassuring. How very considerate of your opponent not to upset your plans for the rest of the day. However, you need tonight to find out how to counter this Mr. Q.D. Expert, and then you will need tomorrow to pull it off. For all practical purposes, you might just as well be facing an expert from Venus testifying on the fusion power units of Martian spaceships. How can you find in short order an expert of your own to tell you how to handle this strange creature taking the oath and giving you a gaze of conquest and superiority? There may be no cavalry to call even if you could call them. They might never arrive in time anyway. Your case is one wagon train wiped out with victory in sight. Youre a goner. Right? Not necessarily.

The expert ambush need not be a handwriting expert; it could be any kind of expert. Since I know about handwriting, I will use it to illustrate how to hold out until you can call in your own expert trooper, of whatever brand expert. Not being an attorney, I cannot tell you about laws and rules, only about techniques for taking the upper hand over the expert who knows it all, while you know nothing at all about that expertise. A Few General Pointers The usual guidelines for cross-examining an expert are either inapplicable when facing the expert ambush or require modification. You are in a desperate situation, and desperation calls for desperate measures. Your strategy is to make as legitimately lengthy an examination as possible. Extend voir dire till you can call in a consultant to help with cross-examination of the experts testimony in chief. In the illustrative example, that means using up to one and a half hours for a thorough voir dire after the fifteen-minute, or less, presentation of qualifications. The 60 to 90 minutes for lunch might permit finding someone who can come in today. Then your strategy is to make a technically and properly complete cross-examination till the 5 p.m. adjournment. At which time the judge should be informed either that your examination is complete or precisely how much more you have to go. Resist the ploy of telling the judge you only have two or three more questions. As we all know, when an attorney says, "I only have two or three more questions to go," the word "question" is a synonym for "hour." And what is another night without sleep during litigation? You and your expert consultant cum surrebuttal witness, will be able to prepare the presentation which will be a brief and deft coup de gras to your opponents case. Tactics Now for tactics. You do not want just to kill time, as that would rouse the judges legitimate ire. Begin by explaining to the judge that you will need to pursue in court all the discovery and deposition you would have pursued pre-trial if your opponent had been courteous and honest enough to disclose his long and well-laid plans for calling Mr. Q.D. Expert. Request adjournment to permit such a full-scale discovery. If denied, your first task is to conduct just about the most complete expert voir dire you ever conducted, but doing it cold. Getting the knack of that will give you the knack of a prolonged and thorough cross-examination. Your first need is for a copy of Mr. Q.D. Experts curriculum vitae. No matter how short it is, it has to be made up of words, and every word is a universe in its own right. And every universe is filled with many, many questions, all of which you can ask. So: 1. Voir dire every sentence in the c.v., down to each phrase and every word. With a one-page c.v., for example, one could legitimately interrogate for a couple days at least, barring total exhaustion of judicial patience. It starts off: "Duties encompass." And gives three complex combinations of duties, one of which reads: "restoration and decipher of indented, erased, altered

and obliterated writings." You could ask the same dozen or more questions of each of those six principal words, but I will illustrate a few for "indented" only.
y y y y y

Mr. Expert, please define "indented writings." In what situations do you encounter indented writings? What special equipment do you employ in restoring indented writings? In deciphering indented writings? Please explain each one and its use. What training did you receive to use [name each piece of equipment in turn] properly? [After several more such questions] What application does examination of indented writings have in determining the authenticity of defendants purported signature on the lease to the chicken hutch? None? So really your qualification in indented writings, which we have been exploring for the last 45 minutes, is irrelevant to the problem before this court, right? Your honor, I move that this witness be dismissed as having irrelevant qualifications, based on his own testimony just now.

2. Explore each book, article or author he has read in his field, along with every class, conference or meeting of any kind he ever attended. Particularly, ask of each whether it is an authority relied on in this case. Authoritative authors are gold mines of impeachment. If to escape such a source of impeachment the expert names no authoritative author relied on (a trick an ABFDE expert got away with once, while another said he was his own and only authority), he cannot qualify as practicing an established, recognized discipline or science. He would likely not qualify under either a Frye or a Daubert type of test for admissibility of scientific testimony. 3. Have the expert define every technical term employed, plus every technical or obscure term used in the definition. For example, handwriting experts love to explain away differences between the disputed and exemplar signatures by saying they are "normal range of variation." That phrase simply begs for a two-hour exploration of what the three terms mean and how they are ascertained in this specific instance. For example, ask:
y y

y y

"Normal." That means based on some norm, right? What is the norm upon which you base this supposed range of variation? Let me help you out. Is it the normal as opposed to the abnormal or subnormal? [If the expert is silly enough to go for that, you can challenge on lack of psychological training.] As to what most people in San Francisco or the Bay Area or California or the U.S. or the world do? What are the scientific criteria for identifying this norm? What are the statistical, research studies which establish it? Where are they published? Explore thoroughly each published study the expert mentions.

Do the same for "range and "variation." With a few such well-aimed queries, you will find there is a lot of fluff and hot air in a lot of expertise. 4. Make the expert describe in detail each piece of equipment he owns, its purpose, function, operation, cost, training received, etc. and so on. Then ask its application in this case. If applied in this case, explore exactly how applied and the totality of results. If not applied, then why not

and does that not indicate more irrelevant qualifications for identifying a signature? If you have a penchant for unfair deviltry, you can say: "You" honor, we need a specialist, not some jack of all trades who cannot focus on any particular skill, but will do whatever he can to earn a buck." 5. Obtain from Mr. Q.D. Expert the most detailed step-by-step description of his method for doing each thing he did in this case. Then ask for a complete explication for each step: who established it; what proves its validity; what proves you are reliable in performing it; is there not a better way to do it; plus similar enquiries as your wisdom brings forth. 6. Employ all the usual voir dire questions, even if you suspect some will yield no beneficial information. Remember, surviving until tomorrow when your cavalry comes is your only hope of surviving this litigation. Besides, you never know when and where you will strike evidential gold. 7. Before you can complete your third question, the judge will start realizing that this case may not end today. Besides already being tired of seeing both counsel, the judge desperately does not want a clogged court calendar to become more clogged. At the same time, plaintiff attorney knows his expert ambush will succeed only if it and the entire case end today. Judge and opposing counsel have an interest in common: Push you to expedite your voir dire and crossexamination. So your seventh tactic will be methods to resist being rushed. That requires knowledge and mastery of the legal tools involved, something I am no help with, but I can offer this suggestion: Use any effort to rush you along as an important legal issue to be addressed at length. Thoroughly. But most important of all, take every opportunity to reiterate to the judge your legitimate need to pursue full discovery during court session unless provided a continuance to do so. Recall each item of information you solicited by this protracted and thorough questioning which was beneficial to your clients cause. Explain how doing less than what you are doing would be unethically abandoning your clients interests. At every opportunity you have, repeat your reasonable request for a continuance to permit proper discovery. What are some of the attorney skills which seem applicable in this desperate hold-off for survival but might be ill advised? Mostly it is the specialized application of the chicanery as opposed to the common wisdom of the legal profession. Let us take a certain demeanor as an example of a tactic to avoid, because it would be sheer dragging out of time as opposed to legitimately thorough questioning. You might pause reflectively before every statement you make, however inane it may be. But the judge would know you are killing time, and that would belie the assertion you are only pursuing proper inquiry. Courteously let your opponent, the ambushing expert and the court speak at length on any topic they wish. There is nothing like drafting the opposition into your cause! However, they would see through that quite quickly and might no longer take seriously your requests for legitimate discussion.

You might sincerely ask the court and opposing counsel to elucidate their points even further. You want so much to be ever so clear about what they are telling you. But that also could well backfire for the same reasons. At each answer the witness gives, you might show your appreciation. Many attorneys have the annoying habit of repeating each answer before asking the next question. "Did you sneeze? You sneezed. Did you also cough? You did not cough. Did you?" But now is not the time to adopt that annoying habit. You do not want to annoy the judge, you want to win his appreciation for your position. Also, dont preface each question with that ubiquitous, pseudo-polite phrase, "May I ask you." I fantasize that some day I will reply to it for the record: "No! You may not ask me that." A judge would be especially and reasonably annoyed with the attorney who makes the courtesy very courteous and combines it with repetition of the answer, such as: "May I ask you about the year 1985 when you said you had the good fortune of studying with Dr. Lot Z. Smartz, the world authority on I-dots. What particularly in that experience gave you special skill in authenticating signatures on leases to chicken hutches?" One might invite the expert to brag some more, a thing experts are not the least bit loath to do: "Thank you, sir, for telling us how much you enjoyed that year. Is there anything else you wish to add to your answer?" On the other hand, if you focus the expert only on the topic you are pursuing, the judge would better appreciate that you are not wasting time but are employing it to the fullest. One thing every attorney could adopt is the one thing which some attorneys seem to find hardest to do, even harder than being totally deferential to opposing counsel: Speak in a measured pace with well enunciated words. That would stretch out the time, but in a way the court reporter at least would be most appreciative of. An exceptionally good record of all that you are doing might well be needed later. In all of this, avoid dead time. Be thorough as you never were thorough in your legal life, but do so not by stalling, but by keeping things moving, and moving, and moving, and always to good purpose. Since Mr. Q.D. Experts c.v. was such a wealth of inspiration for detailed enquiry, think how nice it would be to have a copy of everything in his file for the case. Besides, asking for a copy of his file might permit a legitimate break to allow photocopying. Then every document with its every word will permit you to recommence the grilling you did on the c.v. During the direct questioning of the testimony in chief, ask that unclear things be repeated, that answers be given in less a rush. You will need very detailed notes to permit very detailed crossexamination. Make every valid objection possible, but avoid the merely plausible and obstructive. If he hears nonsense objections, the judge will reasonably overrule 99 and 44/100 percent of them, and might throw a sanction your way to boot. All in all, look for items which lend themselves to the kind of close enquiry which "normal range of variation" did. How to locate and send out for the cavalry is another topic, as is how to work together to fend off the ambush. In summary, contact the office at the first opportunity in order to have someone

begin a serious search for a consulting expert and possibly a surrebuttal witness. Provident preparation against the moment of panicked need would be to have your own file of potential experts. Maybe take a book like "The Northern California Register of Experts and Consultants" and rate experts listed under each subject I through n. Then in a pinch your secretary knows who to call first. No need to say whom I recommend marking 1 under "Questioned Documents." At least with the above you will have hopefully survived the day, and hopefully your skilll and forthrightness would have gained the judges approval for a continuance. But survival is the most basic human instinct; and, if you do not survive to fight another day, you will have for certain only gained your opponents approval. What possible comfort could that be?

*This article originally appeared in the February / March 1999 issue of San Francisco Attorney magazine, 1999 By: Marcel Matley E-mail: mmatley@aol.com Disclaimer: ExpertPages.com covers a wide range of expert categories, visited by attorneys, government officials, and insurance companies. As part of our service to those potential clients, we publish articles written by experts in their fields (See the ExpertPages Knowledge Base). The views expressed in each article are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the position of ExpertPages or its affiliates.

The Usual Impeachment: Signature Identification

When a handwriting expert says someone wrote a signature that the person did not, observable facts are necessarily going to contradict the opinion. Therefore, hard, observable facts will be the best impeachment material. The following is much abbreviated and modified from an extensive cross-examination in a criminal trial in Washington State. Handwriting expert Hanna McFarland asked me to work with her in formulating the questions. K-2 means the second known signature by defendant, and Q-34 the principal questioned signature he was accused of writing. The objective was to use the prosecutions expert to prove defendant did not sign Q-34. Questions were based on features the expert said that he observed to be similar and relied on for his opinion. The objective was so well achieved that defendant was acquitted. Enlarged exhibits permitted the jury to see for itself each feature mentioned even before the witness answered. Q. Did you measure and compare the height of capital letters? Well, let's do it now with this millimeter ruler I give you. Measure the capital letters. Q. How tall are the two capitals in K-2? About 5 mm and 18 mm. Good. Q. How tall are the two capitals in Q-34? About 30 mm and 27 mm. Good. Q. Are capital letters 5 and 30 mm tall the same height or different heights? Different. Good. Q. Are capital letters 18 and 27 mm tall the same or different heights? Different. Good.

Q. Is K-2 slanted mostly to the left, mostly vertical, or mostly to the right? Mostly vertical. Good. Q. Is Q-34 slanted mostly to the left, mostly vertical, or mostly to the right? Mostly to the right. Q. Is a vertical slant the same slant as a right slant or a different slant? Different. Good. Q. You also said letter disconnections were the same in K-2 and Q-24, right? Good. Q. Is the first name in K-2 written in one stroke without a pen lift? No pen lift. Good. Q. Is not the first name in Q-34 written with the pen lifted two times? Two pen lifts. Good. Q. Are no pen lifts and two pen lifts the same number of disconnections or a different number? You are right, two is twice as much as one. Q. Do letters in the first name in K-2 sit on the base line but in the last name rise above it? Right, first name sits on the base line, and last name rises. Q. In Q-34, do letters in both names fall below, rise above and sit on the base line randomly? These letters do rise and fall randomly. Q. Are those two patterns the same or different base line alignments? Quite different. Thank you. In doing this kind of impeachment, the attorney must practice great discipline, insisting on a direct factual answer to a direct factual question. Slick witnesses will entice the cross-examiner to chase after a new line of impeachment, which is really a trap. Never let the witness lead you. If the opposing document examiner is wrong, I can compose such questions for you. Traced forgeries established by superimposition. Please observe striking coincidence in respect of length, height and spacing of these Signature. (Interpolation)

KASHYAP'S INTERNATIONAL FORGERY DETECTION BUREAU (Since 1935) (Oldest running office in India / Asia )
Office : Above C-Lal Chemist, Opp. Ritz Cinema, Nicholson Road, Kashmere Gate, Delhi 110006 (INDIA) Phone : (O) +91 011 23979835, 23983019, Telefax : (R) +91 011 27603244, Mobile : +91 9810379221 E-mail : akdirector@hotmail.com k_11@yahoo.com

Cross examination (1) Not following good protocol, (2) basing the opinion on erroneous conclusions, (3) couching the opinion in buzz words to make it sound stronger than it actually is, and/or (4) not telling the truth, either through ignorance or with intent.

Testimony of John F. Tyrell

January 15, 1935 JOHN F. TYRRELL, Sworn as a witness in behalf of the State: Direct examination by Mr. Lanigan: Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Tyrrell? A. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Q. Your occupation? A. Examiner of questioned documents. Q. Have you testified on the subject of questioned documents in court? A. I have. Q. What part of your time do you devote to the work of examining questioned documents? A. My entire working hours. Q. Describe briefly what work you have done and what studies you have pursued in connection with the subject. A. I have examined documents, signatures, writings and the like for forty years. I have a library of the best books which I have read. I have an equipment of the approved cameras, instruments, and various matters necessary to conduct the examination of documents. Q. Can you recall some of the cases in which you have testified? A. I testified in the Molineaux case in New York City 35 years ago, the Rice-Patrick case, Dr. Kennedy case those are homicide cases. I testified in the McCormick case, Magniesen case, and other homicide cases and in the Leopold and Loeb case in Chicago. Q. Now, Mr. Tyrrell, I show you the ransom notes and ask you if you made an examination of those? A. Yes. Q. I show you the request and conceded writings and ask if you have made an examination of those. A. Yes. Q. In addition have you made an examination of any other documents of Bruno Richard Hauptmann which are evidence in this case? A. Yes. Q. What other documents, please? A. Documents having to do with automobile licenses. Q. What was the purpose of your examination, sir? A. To determine whether or not there was an identity existing between the normal or automobile writings, the request writings and the ransom notes. Q. As the result of your examination and comparison, have you reached an opinion concerning

them? A. Yes. Q. Are you prepared to express it? A. Yes. Q. What is that opinion? A. That the writers are identical, that they are all written by the one writer. Q. Now, have you prepared any illustrations? A. Yes. I have here a number of comparisons made by placing together in columns words and characters taken from the three writings referred to. They are photographic reproductions of the writings. Q. Now, Mr. Tyrrell, proceed with your illustration. A. "The boy is on the boat Nellie"; and I find evidence that in my opinion points to one writer of the series. The first note, the cradle note, is somewhat of an extravagant disguise. This is evidenced by the inconsistencies as shown by some of the words and letters and others. This similar or a similar disguise is shown in the first four lines of the second note. Obviously the writer of the second note did not have the first note before him when the second note was written. But there are in those first four lines, as it were, recollections of the writing of the first note, in the letter "y", for instance. Q. Will you illustrate it, please? A. The "y" is first made as a "v" and then a stroke is added to it to bring it off to the side. Now that is a peculiar way of making a "y" and is shown in the word "baby" of the second note. Now these y's of the ransom notes, you will notice some variation, but there is this distinctive feature in them, and that is that the upper part is made like a "V" with a sharp turn at the bottom, and this type of "Y" is prevalent throughout these writings. Sometimes the after part of this "V" is made in the same line or direction as the finishing stroke. But the y's, their idea of form, their execution, is the same, and there is with these that variation which is an actual variation, that is, that a writer does not always write exactly alike although he may intend to; but he follows his practice and we do not always precisely duplicate the letters that we make. There is a strong identity in these y's and this, with the other matters that I have referred to, I regard as one writer having written these notes. Q. Now, Mr. Tyrrell, will you proceed with Exhibit S-123. A. I had already drawn the word "child" on the chart and referred to its peculiarities. Now, this dropped part of "h" is a very peculiar matter in writing. I have not found it in any case that I have ever examined to the extent shown here. There have been one or two instances in my experience where part of an "h" has been dropped, but that was probably in those cases accidentally, as there were but one or two instances of it. But in this case it appears to be a habit of this writer to do that peculiar thing, and these h's are slighted in the ransom notes in numerous places and also in the writing from dictation, which, in my opinion indicate that it is an unconscious habit of this writer to do this peculiar thing. Now we have the word "that" taken from Exhibit S-65, the sixth line. Q. Referring to letter of April 1st. A. And here we have another element introduced and that is that the "t's" are uncrossed. Of course it is not exactly unusual for a writer to neglect to cross his t's and I have seen German writers that did it. That is probably induced by the fact that the German "t" is not made with a cross as we make it, but by a little turn at the bottom near the base line, a very expressive and legible letter as they make it, but this writer makes a turn at the bottom of the "t," a turn of the

pen for the stroke to the next letter and does not cross the "t." [We also] have five instances of the dropping of the "h" in the defendant's signature. Q. Yes? A. The word "Richard." The "h" is slighted, and that occurs in four of the request writings signed "Richard Hauptmann"; also in the automobile card, which in my opinion is an indication that this peculiarity exists in the handwriting of this writer to the extent that it is even incorporated in his own signature. Q. Proceed, please, sir. A. This word "time" is written in a very angular type of writing, and, by the way, when these dictated writings are examined, they are two varieties of writings at least, one is the writing that more resembles the ransom letters and the other is a very angular and compact type of writing. The two writings in these dictated writings, if placed side by side, would hardly pass as being written by the same writer without close comparison. Pictorially they are dissimilar. Q. Did you make such a close comparison, Mr. Tyrrell? A. I did. Q. And who was the writer, in your opinion? A. The writer of the standards. All of these converge and point into one direction. Q. For the purpose of clarification, when you refer to the standards, to what writings do you refer? A. I refer to what might be termed the business writings of Richard Hauptmann, as shown in the [automobile] cards, and the others as the dictated writings. [Mr. Tyrrell proceeds to explain his opinion of similarities between "w's"; "N's"; transposed letters in the ("hte" with the uncrossed "t's" looking like "l's". With some items, especially "x's", he ascribes some dissimilarities to "an individualism, and important to that extent."] Q. All right. Now, will you resume the witness stand, please? A. (Witness resumed the stand from the display easel.) Q. Now, Mr. Tyrrell, you have examined all of the automobile licenses of Bruno Richard Hauptmann? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have examined this Haberland agreement in the handwriting of Hauptmann? A. Yes, sir. Q. You have examined all of the ransom notes? A. Yes. Q. From your examination and comparison of the conceded writings and the automobile writings and the contracts of Hauptmann, can you say positively who wrote the ransom notes? A. The writer is identical. If the automobile cards and the request writings were written by Bruno Richard Hauptmann, then he also wrote the ransom notes. Q. All of the ransom notes, sir? A. Yes, sir. Mr. Lanigan: You may cross-examine. Cross examination by Mr. Pope:

Q. Mr. Tyrrell, how long have you been engaged in the examination of questioned documents? A. Well, I started with the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co Q. No, how long? A. Just a moment. I will explain this. You are getting it. Q. How many years have you been engaged? A. The difference between 1883 and 1934. Q. And how many years have you been engaged in examining what may be termed disputed handwritings? A. Well, my first case was in 1892. Q. Did you ever attend any school or college or institution of learning for the purpose of qualifying yourself to examine disputed handwritings? A. No. My college was the experience Q. There is no such school or institution of learning that teaches the art of examining disputed handwritings, is there? A. No, that I know of. Q. Now in all of your experience in the examination of disputed handwritings do you generally find it to be true that the handwriting which you are examining is disguised or camouflaged? A. No. Q. Have you ever examined a case in which there were ransom notes or an attempted extortion before? A. Yes, four or five. Q. And in each one of these cases, did you find evidences of an attempt to disguise? A. Yes quite a decided attempt. Q. Well, except in forgery cases, do not all disputed handwritings present an attempt to disguise? A. No. Q. You examined the ransom note in this case didn't you, very carefully? A. Yes, sir. Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that the writer of that note attempted to disguise his handwriting? A. No. Q. Would you say from your examination that it was written with [the] left hand or the right hand? A. I couldn't say. Q. Did you attempt to find out? A. Of whom would I ask? Q. From your examination of the handwriting. A. Writing with the left hand, the legibility Q. No, just a minute, Professor. A. No, just plain Mister. Q. That is right. Just answer yes or no. It is quite easy for a handwriting expert to determine when a right hand writer uses his left hand, isn't it? A. No. Q. From the formation of his letters and the general slant and the shadings? A. It depends much on the ability of the disguiser. Q. Well then, if there is no difference presented in the slant and shading, then there is another

attempt to disguise? A. I don't quite get that. Q. Where a right hand writer uses his left hand and there appears to be no natural difference in the shading and in the slant, would you say that was an additional attempt to disguise? A. Well, that is only a fragment of a case such as would come to me, I don't think I could pass upon that. Q. Well then, you don't get me, so we will drop it. A. All right. Q. Did you notice any marked difference between the writing of the ransom notes and the subsequent notes that were sent to Dr. Condon and Mr. Lindbergh? A. Yes. They were less violent in their expressions of words and lines. Q. From your experience, what other methods of camouflage have you found used by writers who were trying to pull something over on somebody if we may use that expression? A. I wasn't very successful in discovering where they got their inspiration. Q. I am not talking about their inspiration; I am asking you what method they used to disguise their handwriting or to prevent detection. A. Well, sometimes they used pen printing. Sometimes they used a difference in the slant, a difference in pen-holding. Q. Well, that is the formation of letters. I am asking you if they used any other method besides the malformation of letters? A. Yes, they would be likely to use anything that occurred to them that would destroy a pictorial resemblance to their own writing. Q. For instance, like a transposition of words? A. Well, I have found a case or two where there was transposition of words. Q. And the use of ungrammatical expressions? A. That is largely an educational matter. Q. Well, from your experience, have they sometimes endeavored to ward off suspicion by the use of ungrammatical expressions? A. Yes. Q. Now your examination of the questioned documents is not limited merely to the examination of the formation of letters, is it? You study the entire instrument, don't you? A. Yes. Q. And particularly where you are trying to connect a series of documents, you try to connect up one with the other grammatical expressions and rhetoric which you find here and there, do you? A. Well, those would come naturally under consideration. Q. Now, I want to call your attention to S-121, which is your number 1. In this exhibit, you call attention to the capital D, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. I want to call your attention to the capital D's in the ransom note, as found beginning at the top, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, in fact, every one of them, all the way down the line, as compared with the capital D under the dictated column on the right. There is a dissimilarity there, is there not? A. Yes. Q. Those instances of connection which I have just pointed out are marked dissimilarities, are they not? A. Yes. Q. Now, then, referring to the capital S in the word "Sir" take the one at the top, the ransom

note. May I have your chalk a minute? I am not very much of a handwriting expert, but I think perhaps I can help you a bit. A. You may be an artist in disguise. I don't know. Q. Referring to the "S's" in the dictated handwriting, there are five of them; they are all dissimilar to the ones I have pointed out, are they not? A. Yes. Q. Now in this next exhibit, you called attention to the letter y's. I call your attention first to the ransom y's and then to the standard y's. Taken the third word. That looks to me like "notify." That is an entirely different form of "y", isn't it? A. Yes. Q. And then you come to the fourth word "notify." That is still another form of "y", isn't it? A. Yes. Q. I next want to call your attention to S-123. When you were demonstrating this exhibit, you laid great stress upon the small "d" in the word "child", didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And in the dictated letters you found a copy of the ransom letter, didn't you? A. No, I don't recall. Q. You don't recall? A. No, I used this illustration for a different purpose. Q. Yes. But at any rate if you found the word "child" in any of the dictated writings, you did not show it up on your photograph here? A. No. Q. Or use it for comparison? A. This chart was used to illustrate the dropping of one part of the letter "h". Q. And also the peculiar character of the letter "d"? A. Well, I referred to that, but the chart itself wasn't arranged with that purpose in mind. Q. I see. But the one thing that you desire the jury to pay attention to is the formation of the letter "d" in "child". A. Yes. Q. You illustrated that on the chart, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. Now referring to the other word "Richard" under the heading on your chart "Standard Writings" in the middle column, every one of those are dissimilar from the "d" in the word "child", which you expressed, are they not? A. Yes. [Mr. Pope addresses next the "h", comparing the standard (dictated letters) to various ransom notes, finding an apparent dissimilarity in the two methods of formation. He follows with like attention to the "y"/"j" assertion made in the direct examination.] Q. Now, referring to the "o" in the ransom note, are they not what you might term wide open "o's" at the top? A. Yes. Q. And the "o's" in the dictated writing, while they are open, they are more closely drawn together, are they not, or closed at the top?

In some instances. Q. In some instances. I think that finishes with that one, sir.... Q. Then it is your idea from studying these exhibits that the ransom notes were probably written by a man of German extraction? A. Yes. [Mr. Pope introduces the hyphenation between the words "New" and "York" as evidenced in both the standard handwriting as well as the dictated letters.] Q. In all of your experience you have never seen "New York" written with a hyphen between "New" and York"? A. No. Q. By German writers? A. No. [Mr. Pope introduces eight envelopes and post cards, all bearing a hyphenated "New York".] Q. You know German writing when you see it? A. Yes. Q. You have studied it many, many years. A. Yes Q. [In reference to a particular post card's post mark.] I ask you the plain question, is or is not that German writing? Mr. Wilentz: Just a moment. I don't want to object, but may I suggest to the witness that it is not necessary for him to answer that question if he has not had sufficient time to study it. Mr. Pope: There are only two words in "New York" I withdraw the question. [Mr. Pope continues with a number more items exhibiting a hyphenated address.] Mr. Pope: I think we have enough of these exhibits, haven't we? We have more here, but I think that is plenty to demonstrate our point. [Mr. Pope attempts to inject a methodology of reading the notes "without disguising techniques", using instead the correct, de-coded, intent of the writer. He tries to work in the view that the notes have been written by an "... experience good English scholar" and also a businessman] Q. Now, I believe you said you came form Milwaukee? A. You believe correctly. Q. Mr. Tyrrell, do you remember about ten years ago being a witness in I think it was the Municipal Court of Milwaukee? A. Yes. Q. Whatever it was, in a case brought in an indictment against Gordon Morgan? A. Don't recall it. Q. Who was charged with forging, with allegedly forging a document, in which you appeared as the handwriting expert for the State. A. I remember a case of that description. Q. Yes. Perhaps I can refresh your recollection. The particular defendant that I am referring to if I do not happen to have his name correctly is this: This man was convicted and sentenced to prison and, after he was convicted upon your testimony Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. Q. a man by the name of Herman Eckert confessed that he himself had written the checks and

the case was reopened and Morgan was discharged. Mr. Wilentz: Please don't answer the question until I have a chance to object. The Court: Do you remember the case to which I am now referring you may answer that, yes or no. The Witness: Yes. Q. And in that case you testified that the forged checks were in the handwriting of the defendant, didn't you? Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, I object to the question. This gentleman's qualifications were admitted and conceded. The Court: Well, Mr. Attorney General, I am not so sure that that is exactly so. The qualifications of the preceding expert were expressly admitted. When I put the question to Mr. Pope he declined to admit the qualifications of this expert. I considered that he was qualified, but you see there is a reservation there and apparently he is entitled to press this question. You may proceed. (Question repeated by the Reporter.) A. Yes. Q. And the defendant was convicted, wasn't he? A. Yes. Q. And this man Eckert afterwards confessed that he had forged the checks? A. Next day. Q. I see. That's all.