“And their conclusion?” Jack had the report and Nolan had stipulated that it could come into evidence.
Mrs. Gleb raised an eyebrow. “The ink in the final nineteen words was identical to the ink in the previous sentences.”
“What did that mean to you?”
“That the same pen had been used. I called you and questioned you further.”
That the pen used in the forgery belonged to her had distressed Nina for a full day. Only late that evening did she figure it all out and call Jack.
“You asked about the circumstances of the theft of the document, correct?” Jack asked.
“Yes. And you advised me that Ms. Reilly’s briefcase had been stolen. And inside was her Waterman pen. I had the ink reanalyzed, and all the ink used on this document was the standard ink used in Waterman ballpoint-pen cartridges.”
Nolan took notes, unperturbed. She knew all this already.
“Were you able to make any sort of examination as to the paper?”
“Just on the off chance that the entire third sheet might have been substituted, I performed my own analysis of the sheet. The third sheet was from the same standard type of yellow legal tablet as the others. I could not determine from the paper anything else. I did examine the entire document microscopically for overwriting, underwriting, any evidence of alteration. I found no sign of alterations.”
“What other examination did you undertake?”
“In my primary examination, I compared the last sentences, which are the ones in question, with the writing in the rest of the document. I used glass alignment plates to check the angle of writing, the height, the spacing. I used a comparison microscope as to one word that was repeated, the word don’t. I examined all the writing on the third page using magnifications from ten to fifty times in an attempt to ascertain whether there were signs of forgery.”
“And what would be some of the signs you might look for?”
“For example, signs of tracing. Signs of hesitation in the writing, wavering. Difference in pen pressure. Difference in slant and shape of letters. As to the writing itself, differences in, as I’ve said, height, angle, spacing.”
“Were you able to come to any conclusion regarding the question you were asked to address?”
“Yes, I did.”
“And what was your conclusion?”
“I determined the writing in the last two sentences was a forgery. By a forger of limited skill and mediocre talent, I must add.”
“And on what specifically did you base this conclusion?”
At Mrs. Gleb’s signal, the bailiff brought up a slide on a screen to her right. Nina couldn’t see it very well.
“Lights,” Brock said.
The last words floated up there in the darkness.
“No immediate sign of hesitation. The writing flows,” Mrs. Gleb said. “However, there is an alteration in the pace of the writing, the flow, here. Look at the two dots above the i’s. They are directly above although the rest of the writing rushes forward, like Ms. Reilly’s writing. These i’s were dotted too carefully, later. Compare this with Ms. Reilly’s enthusiastic, optimistic i on page two of her notes.”
The i’s appearing in the phrase liquor-store killings in the part of the document Nina had written had dots that were far to the right of the letter. Nina looked at her i’s. They did seem to hurry toward the right margin of the paper.
But there was more to come. “Now the ends of the words,” Mrs. Gleb said. “Examine the final nineteen words again.” Magnified several times, they achieved the monumental abstract forms of a Motherwell painting, which was fitting, considering the monumental effect of these nineteen words on her life. To Nina, the last sentences looked like they arose out of the same hand as all the others-hers.
“Now look at this sentence from page one,” Mrs. Gleb went on. “I have put the two sentences side by side for comparison.” Nina saw no difference. “Note the terminals on the final letters of each word. The final letters in the last sentence have very small tails on them, you see? This writer wanted to put on even longer tails but restrained himself or herself. The writer of the last sentence wanted the final strokes to go upward, the sign of an extrovert, a gregarious person. You know how the song goes, ‘people who need people’? Our forger probably enjoys parties and loads up his or her spare time with all kinds of frivolous social events.
“Now, in contrast, study the final letters on the words Ms. Reilly admits she has written. No tails. The letters finish and by golly they are finished. Abruptly. Look here. The final stroke on the small d comes down below the basic line. This is a primitive stroke and denotes that the writer is opinionated and perhaps unreasonable at times. Ms. Reilly is perhaps a stubborn personality who casts off unnecessary details. She is not gregarious. She is not extroverted.
“Third point of difference. The breaks between letters. Look at the word advised from the last sentence. Note the breaks after the letters a and d. Under the microscope-where is that slide-thank you-very faint connecting lines can be seen. The forger is again acting contrary to his or her real personality in placing breaks between the strokes. The forger wants to connect these letters to the rest of the word, because he or she is a logical person, wary of intuition.
“All forgers are devious by nature, able to subsume the real personality. This forger is able to duplicate Ms. Reilly’s handwriting in a workmanlike manner, with only small, crass hints of form that reveal a covert crudeness in the character. He or she has some limited talent as a craftsman, with these limitations exposed by the roughness of this effort. It is Ms. Reilly, with her tricky breaks between letters-look here, she is practically printing-who is the creative person, the artist. I must say I cannot understand what she is doing in the law.”
As this unfortunate sentence came out of the garrulous expert’s mouth, Nina tried to suppress a nervous giggle. She hoped the judge wouldn’t agree with Mrs. Gleb.
“Anything else?” Jack said quickly.
“Point four. The loops that extend downward from the y and the f. Look at the lower loops of the nineteen words in question. The forger extends the stroke downward and there is just the minutest angle as he swoops into a big loop like Ms. Reilly’s. He doesn’t really want to make that big loop, he just wants a long line down. He is faking it.” Nina stared at the letters. The lower loops looked enormous. The bottoms of some of the loops didn’t look smooth, as though someone had done just what Mrs. Gleb was saying. She pictured the forger in a workshop lit by candlelight, crafting away like Geppetto.
“This forger is a practical type, perhaps interested in money. A controlling personality. Not a natural looper. In contrast, Ms. Reilly makes almost exaggerated lower loops, expressing the earthy demands made upon her by her own nature. Her loops indicate that her nature is sensuous. Her instinctive physical drives are strong.”
Mrs. Gleb paused while Nina died of embarrassment. She hadn’t sat in on Jack’s previous discussions with Mrs. Gleb.
“Anything else you based your decision on?”
“A strong feeling, my own intuition based on many years of experience,” Mrs. Gleb said. “However, I would have disregarded that if I did not find the other external evidence I have discussed.”
“And your conclusion, once again, based on your years of training and experience?”
“The final nineteen words were not written by the same person who wrote the rest of the document.”
“Thank you very much. No further questions.”
Gayle Nolan got up, every line in her face arched and incredulous. “Mrs. Gleb, what are the names of the last two books you have published?”
“Let me see. I have published ten. The last book was titled Graphology in Everyday Life.”
“And the one before that?”
“The Psychology of the Hand.”
“That is also supposed to be a book about graphology?”
“Yes. Graphology is my current area of interest.”
“Wh
at exactly is graphology?”
“It is a type of psychology, a method of determining personality by examining handwriting.”
“And you used graphology in making these observations about the last sentences and the preceding sentences in Exhibit 18, didn’t you?”
“Over the years I have developed greater insight into traditional methods of examining questioned documents using the methods of graphologists, and I took advantage of my insight in this case, yes.”
“Now, you testified that you examined the ink on the two samples and found them to be identical, right?”
“Yes. From the same pen, the lab concluded.”
“And you assume that the forger used Ms. Reilly’s pen, which was found when the briefcase was stolen?”
“That’s what I understood.”
“But in fact you have no personal knowledge that the pen was in the briefcase, right?”
Mrs. Gleb, unflappable, said, “None of us was there at that time. However, I saw the contents of the briefcase as listed in the police report Ms. Reilly gave on the day after the theft, and she mentioned her Waterman pen.”
Nice comeback, Nina thought.
“Let’s assume that we don’t know what happened to the pen,” Nolan said. “And all you had to go on was that the ink was identical. What would be your conclusion then? Based on that one fact alone?”
Jack stood up and said, “I think we’re running into trouble with this hypothetical. I object, lack of foundation. It’s not a fair question, Judge. No handwriting examiner ever looked at just one thing.”
“I understand the point, Counsel,” Judge Brock told Nolan. “We’ll go on.”
“All right, Your Honor. Now, Mrs. Gleb, the paper didn’t help you either, did it, since the questionable sentences were written on the same paper?”
“That is true.”
“So you were quite handicapped in terms of doing any sort of chemical analysis?”
“Yes.”
“Did you look for fingerprints?”
“Yes. Allied Laboratories did that. They discovered many smudged fingerprints. Apparently the papers passed from hand to hand at the insurance company. None were identifiable.”
“So you had no hard evidence of any forgery, isn’t that right?”
“Objection,” Jack said. “What’s hard evidence?”
“Let’s rephrase,” Brock said.
“The point is, all you had was the handwriting itself, is that correct?” Nolan asked.
“It was quite sufficient.”
“Okay, you said that you examined the angle of the writing, the slant, the spacing. You couldn’t conclude anything from that, right?”
“Not from that.”
“Did you find any evidence of tracing?”
“I would say, no.”
“Differences in pen pressure?”
“Nothing obvious.”
“Wavering? Hesitation?”
“No. This was a confident person.”
“So you based your conclusion on four factors, you testified.”
“That, and my overall experience. Many, many years of experience.”
“Right. The first factor you mentioned was the dot above the i.”
“Mm-hmm.”
“Now, exactly how many i’s were you able to observe in these disputed final phrases?”
“Six.”
“And in every case, was the dot directly above the short line of the letter?”
“As I testified, only two of the six i’s had dots directly above the line. But these distinct variations from all the other i’s in the document are quite dispositive in my opinion. These two dots were damning, as they show a deliberation and care that does not come from a person taking notes, but only from a person forging a document.”
“The two damning dots were above, rather than to the right, as in the other i’s on the other pages?”
“Yes.”
“What was the difference?”
“I don’t know what you mean, the difference.”
“Between the dots? What you called the forged dots and the nonforged dots. How much out of alignment were the nonforged dots from their roots or slashes, whatever you call the rest of the i?”
“Well, the difference would be in millimeters.”
“Couldn’t Ms. Reilly have made a couple of dots just a millimeter closer to the main letter because she had something on her mind that was affecting her writing a little? Something that maybe made her feel a little less headlong than usual? Like finding out her client was a crook and deciding right then, as she was writing, that she would go along with it?”
“It’s true the sample was small. Only the two letters. However, people don’t usually vary much in the same piece of writing written at the same time.”
“But she’d just had a big piece of news there at the end.”
“Even so.”
“Okay, let’s move on to your second factor. What you call the terminals on the final letters of the words. You say there is evidence that in the questioned passage this extroverted forger wanted to curve up the terminals?”
“Yes. There was a tendency.”
“Let’s see that side-by-side slide again. A tendency, you say. Does that have anything to do with something we can observe?”
“Slide 12, please,” Mrs. Gleb said. A giant swooping geometrical design appeared. “That is the terminal s on the final word, this, found in the last sentence,” Mrs. Gleb said. “Note the slight movement upward.”
“It’s slight, all right. In fact, it’s microscopic, this tendency, isn’t it?”
“Most crucial details in this work are only observable under a microscope.”
“Hmm. Your third factor. The breaks between the letters. Looks to me like this so-called forger did put breaks between the letters.”
“Under the microscope I saw faint connecting lines.”
“Show us the slides then.”
“The slides did not pick up these slight lines.”
“Ah! Because they were only tendencies, too?”
“I saw them, but there are limits to photography. There was an almost imperceptible attempt to connect the letters in several instances.”
“Which you cannot show us in court today?”
“I can only testify they were seen by me.”
“And from these imperceptible tendencies, by the way, you adduced quite a lot about our so-called forger. He or she is a logician, a craftsman who will never be a Rembrandt. Unlike Ms. Reilly, who could dazzle the art world?”
“These are my observations.”
“These are your fantasies.”
“Objection!”
“Let’s move on.” Judge Brock obviously didn’t like to rule on things because inaction cut down on points to appeal.
“And now we move on to your fourth and final factor. Put that slide up, please. Okay, we have a little angularity on two of the letters, on the lower loops, right before they start to loop upward.”
“Where the forger wanted to stop.”
“You certainly are deep into the mind of this mythical forger, aren’t-”
“Objection!”
“Move on.”
“I’d like a ruling.”
“Sustained.” That’s more like it, Nina thought. At least a tiny semblance of real law practice endured.
“So the forger wanted to stop? To just make a straight line instead of a lower loop?”
“Correct. That is demonstrated by this stoppage, this angle here, for example.”
Nolan smiled. “It was hard for this speculative person to duplicate the evidence of Ms. Reilly’s huge appetite for life, her sexual vigor?”
“Objection!” Jack roared.
“She’s the one reading palms,” Nolan said.
“Counsel, restrain yourself,” Judge Brock said, his voice as affectless as ever, still attempting to demonstrate that he was a mere shell of a man, a nonpartisan vehicle for justice, in contrast to Nolan, who now o
penly flaunted the instincts of a starving she-wolf.
“That’s what you testified, isn’t it? The so-called forger is practical and money-oriented, not much of a lover, I take it. He was faking it, right? But according to you no one could ever accuse Ms. Reilly of faking it.”
“Your Honor, Counsel’s sarcasm isn’t getting us anywhere and is squandering the court’s valuable time,” Jack said. Nina bristled at his mildness. In good old Judge Milne’s court back at Lake Tahoe, the bailiff would be carting Nolan off to the tank, high heels kicking, on a contempt citation. Not only was Nolan assassinating Nina’s character, she was indulging in jokes at her expense, trivializing the whole proceeding as unworthy of serious attention. She wanted Nina clapped quickly into the stocks so the outraged townspeople could hurl rotten eggs at her.
“How much of your conclusion is based on court-approved techniques of questioned-documents analysis, versus graphology, Mrs. Gleb?”
“It is all relevant and important.”
“You can’t separate the two?”
“There is no separation. Let me say to you, Madam Attorney, that any examiner who tells you he isn’t using his intuition in the examination isn’t doing his job.”
“Right, intuition. I have nothing further for this witness.”
“You may step down.”
Mrs. Gleb left in a cloud of expensive perfume.
Jack had told Nina he tried out two other examiners before trying Mrs. Gleb, who had seemed so-so unperfumed back then. After examining the document, these alternative experts both admitted the likelihood of forgery, but had refused to stake their reputations on it.
Nina looked at the gigantic, swooping strokes of her handwriting, naked and eager on the screen. She looked down at her legal pad, at the notes she had been taking this morning with their huge lower loops everywhere. She turned the page hastily.
“We will take a final short break. You have one more witness on the Vang matter, is that right?” Judge Brock asked Jack.
“Yes. Mrs. See Vang,” Jack said.
“All right. We’ll take her then.”
Outside in the general waiting area, Mrs. Gleb cornered them before they could escape. “Know one thing,” she said. “I am right in what I say. You must ignore the mean-spirited sarcasm, as I’m sure the judge will do.”
Unfit to Practice Page 38