Daniel Norman

A document examiner hired by the defense for its motion for a new trial, Dr. Norman took test samples of the Baltimore Documents and the envelope in which Chambers said they had been stored. He found that  the documents were of different ages. Nor were they typed with the same ribbon, he said. This led the defense to conclude that they were typed in different years (not over a single period of days in 1938, as Chambers claimed). Norman also noted significant differences in paper sizes among the documents, and that some pages were cut to make them all appear to be the same size. Hiss's attorney, Chester Lane, said this was further indication of a forgery, because, he said, an espionage agent would not take the time to do this. 

Dr. Norman also examined the envelope and found that stains that had leaked through the envelope were not found on the pages. Norman maintained that had the envelope been stored with the documents inside for ten years, at least some of the stains would have been evident on the paper inside the envelope. 

Dr. Norman also analyzed the Woodstock typewriter #230,099, found by the defense and thought to be the old Hiss family typewriter. Dr. Norman saw that the typebars on the machine had been crudely altered with blobs of solder that were still present on the keys. He said none of this work matched the kind of manufacturing techniques used in the Woodstock factory, leading to his conclusion that the machine had been altered.