home

Were Bush Guard Documents Forged?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections
Posted on Fri Sep 10, 2004 at 10:10:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bump and Update: Just got an email from a reader who thought we missed the forgery story. We didn't, we just wrote a lot of stuff afterwards. So here's a bump to our post written at 5:17 pm yesterday so you all can keep discussing it.

*********************
There is quite a debate going on in the blogosphere about the Killiam Memos revealed last night on 60 Minutes regarding Bush's National Guard Service. Powerlinereports on those claiming they are a forgery while Kevin Drum of Washington Monthly reports CBS is confident they are authentic.

The argument concerns typefaces available in 1971....

Update: Here's proof from IBM that proportional spacing came out in 1954 on it's IBM Executive model. (via Jefe at Atrios.) That does look like the memos.

Update: Electric typewriters began replacing manual typewriters in the mid-1960's. The IBM Selectric came around 1970. Manual typewriters began to disappear during the mid 1960's due to the increased popularity of electric typewriters. The Selectric was to electric typewriters what the Underwood was to manuals. (Atlantic Monthly, Nov. 1997, available on Lexis.com in which the author also describes viewing Selectrics "circa 1970" in a shop)

As to forensic document experts and typewriting, I'm more than a bit skeptical about their capablilities and reliability. From a brief I wrote in a federal case a few years back:

Forensic typewriting comparison analysis is not scientifically valid or reliable. It is not likely to be helpful to the trier of fact. It does not constitute technical or other specialized knowledge. Typewriting and handwriting comparison and identification analysis are similar in that neither is a science. No schools provide degrees in these fields. Dating typewriting is not a task that forensic document examiners can perform with any measure of accuracy. They do not possess sufficient information from with to draw such conclusions. This is especially true when the examiner does not possess the typewriter and can not test it or determine the cause of the defect. Any conclusion drawn in this area is unreliable, untrustworthy, likely invalid, and therefore not helpful to the trier of fact.

In that case, which went to trial, the jury found the defendant not guilty despite the best efforts of the Government's forensic document examiner. (I can't claim credit for the acquittal, my role was limited to defending against the forensic document and typewriting experts.)
< Federal Judge Tosses Child Porn Law | Help Dave Thomas Get to Congress >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Were Bush Guard Documents Forged? | 0 comments ( topical)