The
Experts: Daniel Norman |
Dr.
Daniel P. Norman, a Harvard-educated chemist, subjected the
Baltimore Documents to spectrographic analysis. The following
affidavit was included in Alger Hiss's motion for a new trial.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY
OF ESSEX
DANIEL
P. NORMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am President of Skinner & Sherman, Inc., 246 Stuart
Street, Boston, Mass. My firm is engaged in the business of
testing and analysis both physical and chemical, of paper
and other materials, for the United States Armed Services,
Federal, State, and Municipal Departments, and major industrial
firms. My qualifications, and those of my organization, in
this and related fields are set out in detail in an affidavit
which I executed on March 7, 1952, for filing in connection
with a motion for a new trial of Alger Hiss on the ground
of newly discovered evidence.
In the latter part of March 1952, Chester T. Lane, attorney
for Alger Hiss, informed me that the United States Attorney
had finally agreed to make available to him for physical examination
and analysis the originals of the so-called Baltimore Documents
which were introduced in evidence at the Hiss trials, and
he requested me and my organization to examine these documents
by physical and chemical tests in an attempt to obtain any
possible information as to their source and history. He told
me that he was particularly interested in any conclusions
which I could draw from such an examination which would bear
upon the truth of the claim that Baltimore Documents 5-47
were all documents typed by one person on one machine in the
period of approximately the first three months of 1938 and
had all been kept together, with other material, in a single
envelope from the middle of 1938 until November 1948.
Baltimore
Documents 5-47 and Government Exhibits 34, 37, 39 and 46-B
(the Hiss Standards) [letters acknowledged to have been typed
by the Hisses in the 1930s] were made available to me and
my organization under FBI guard in Boston on April 1, 1952.
Shortly thereafter, at my request, there were also made available
the envelope (Government Exhibit 19) in which I understand
it has been claimed that the documents were stored between
1938 and l948, as well as Baltimore Documents 1-4 (the handwritten
notes) and Government Exhibits 66 and 66-A (the paper on which
Mr. McCool typed in court).
I
was permitted to cut a section of the blank portions, of each
of the typed Baltimore Documents, a section of page 3 of Government's
Exhibit 46-B, and a section of the completely blank page of
Exhibit 66. In most instances, the sections were approximately
1" square but in a few instances as large as approximately
4" x 5". I was not permitted to take any section on
which there was typing or writing of any kind, and wherever
an abnormality of any kind, such as a stain or spot, was observed
I had to leave at least half of the abnormality. I
was also permitted to cut six 1" squares from the envelope,
one from the flap, three from the front and two from the back,
the sections in each instance again being so selected that at
least half of each stain in which I was interested was left
intact on the envelope. As
a result of direct observation of the papers and study of my
photographs of them, as well as chemical and other analyses
of the specimens which were furnished to me, I have been able
to reach a number of definite conclusions bearing on the questions
which Mr. Lane asked us to consider. Physically,
the typed Baltimore Documents except Nos. 9 and 10 fall into
two different size categories:
A. 8
1/2" x 11" (Baltimore Documents numbered 5, 6,
7, 8,12, 13, 15, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46,
47).
B. 8"
x 10 1/2" (Baltimore Documents numbered 11, 14, 16,
17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, 35, 36).
All
documents in category A (8 1/2" x 11") are heavily
yellowed and show marks of age over substantial portions of
their area to a degree not apparent in any of the documents
in category B (8" x 10 1/2"). The appearance of
the paper in the category B documents is very similar to that
of Government manifold paper known to have been stored in
ordinary office files from 1937 to 1952. The appearance of
the paper in the category A documents is that of sheets which
have been subjected to deteriorating conditions which were
not uniform across the area of the sheets.
It
is well known that the conditions of storage of paper have
a considerable influence on its degree of permanence, variations
in heat and humidity being in particular responsible for variations
in the rate of aging and yellowing of paper. In view of the
fact that most of the papers in both category A and category
B are of the same general class (predominantly chemical wood
pulp) and show no chemical idiosyncrasies (such as abnormal
alum concentrations which would be reflected in abnormal acidity),
I conclude that the two categories of documents could not
have been stored together under the same atmospheric conditions
for most of their existence.
I
have carefully examined this envelope (Government Exhibit
19) for the purpose of determining whether it would nevertheless
have been possible that some of the documents might have been
stored in it. My examination leads to the conclusion that
it would not have been possible. I base this observation on
analyses of certain stains appearing on both the front and
back of the envelope, and both inside and out, as well as
upon observation of the effect made on the envelope by the
presence of certain hard physical objects which may have been
microfilm containers of one kind or another. These observations
lead me to conclude that, unless very elaborate precautions
had been taken, no set of papers could have been enclosed
for a period of 10 years in this envelope without showing
stains or pressure marks which are totally absent in all the
typed Baltimore Documents. In view of the size of the envelope
and the presumed size of the microfilm containers or other
physical objects which were enclosed in it, I am satisfied
that there would not have been room in the envelope for additional
material sufficient to protect the Baltimore Documents.
***
What
I have said indicates that it would have been impossible for
all the typed Baltimore Documents to have been stored together
over the 10 year period from 1938 to 1948. From this it follows
that they cannot have been all stored together during that
period in the envelope in which they are alleged to have been
stored.
DANIEL
P. NORMAN
COMMONWEALTH
OF MASSACHUSETTS
Essex,
ss.:
Subscribed
and sworn to before me, this 18th day of April, 1952.
SIDNEY
N. TOWLE, JR
Notary Public
My commission expires November 7, 1953.
(SEAL)
|