The
Experts:
Elizabeth McCarthy |
Did
Priscilla Hiss type the Baltimore Documents? Was forgery by
typewriter possible? Here is the expert opinion of Elizabeth
McCarthy, who served as official document examiner for both
the Boston police and the Massachusetts State Police. This
affidavit was included in Alger Hiss's motion for a new trial.
COMMONWEALTH
OF MASSACHUSETTS
COUNTY
OF SUFFOLK
I,
ELIZABETH MCCARTHY, of Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts,
on oath depose and say:
I
reside at 16 Porter Street and have an office at 40 Court
Street, both in said Boston.
I
am a qualified examiner of questioned documents. I have stated
my qualifications in this respect in an affidavit executed
January 22, 1952, for filing in connection with a motion
for a new trial of Alger Hiss on the grounds of newly discovered
evidence.
My
affidavit of January 22nd dealt with the results of an experiment
being conducted by the attorneys for Alger Hiss to determine
the extent to which it would be possible as a practical matter
to build or adapt a typewriter which would so nearly duplicate
the typing of another machine that qualified document examiners,
comparing specimens of typing from the two machines, would
be led by ordinary standards of comparison to conclude that
only a single machine had been used.
*
* *
Recently,
Mr. Lane told me that the Government had finally agreed to
let him have an expert examination made of the originals of
the so-called Baltimore Documents which had been introduced
in evidence in the Hiss trials, as well as the so-called Hiss
Standards [letters acknowledged to have been typed by the
Hisses in the 1930s] with which Mr. Feehan, the Government's
document expert, had compared them. He asked me to compare
these two sets of documents with each other, and also with
specimens of typing from the so-called Hiss machine in his
possession - that is, the machine which had been introduced
into the trials as being the machine owned by the Hisses in
the l930's, and which had been used as the standard machine
in the experiment of trying to create a duplicate. He said
he wanted my opinion as to whether all three sets of documents
had been typed on one machine - in which case, of course,
the machine would necessarily be the so-called Hiss machine
- or whether more than one machine was used, and, if
so, how many.
I
have never examined Mr. Lane's so-called Hiss machine,
my work in connection with the construction of the duplicate
having been limited to examination of specimens of typing
from it and from the duplicate machine. However, since the
experiment in duplication was finished and I made my January
affidavit about it, I have read Dr. Daniel Norman's affidavit
of March 7th in which he describes and illustrates the results
of his physical examination of the machine, and the grounds
for his conclusion that it is a deliberately altered machine.
I have made my examination of the three sets of documents
in the light of my knowledge of Dr. Norman's findings,
as well as my own experience in studying the typing results
of a machine deliberately created for the purpose of showing
that forgery by typewriter would be possible.
Without considering the possibility of forgery, I should have
concluded, by all standard tests ordinarily applied by questioned
document examiners, that all three sets of documents were
typed on the same machine. I should not have based this conclusion
merely upon an inconsequential number of relatively identical
peculiarities, but upon the more convincing fact that I find
no substantial consistent deviations in type impressions as
among the three sets of documents. However, my own experience
has shown me that it is possible, by careful work on a machine,
to eliminate almost completely the deviations which would
normally have developed between its typing and that of another
machine, and therefore, while I cannot say definitely that
all three sets of documents were not typed on the same machine,
I believe it just as possible, in the light of the observable
facts, that the Baltimore Documents were typed on a machine
which was not the original Hiss machine used for the Standards,
but another machine made to type like the original Hiss machine.
Since the typing of the Baltimore Documents so closely resembles
the typing of the specimens from the so-called Hiss machine,
and since Dr. Norman has furnished evidence that the machine
is a deliberately fabricated one, I can only conclude that,
as between the two possibilities, the forgery of the Baltimore
Documents is the more likely. If the Baltimore Documents are
forged, the forgery is a good one, but it is no better than
I know would be possible with careful workmanship.
I have not confined my examination of the documents to a comparison
of the typing for purposes of trying to reach an opinion as
to how many machines were used. When Mr. Lane asked me to
make this comparison he told me that there ware additional
points on which he wanted my opinion. He said that, while
the defense had on earlier occasions been allowed to photograph
the documents in one way or another, the originals had never,
so far as he knew, been made available for close and detailed
expert study. He told me that, according to Chambers'
testimony at the trial, all the typewritten Baltimore Documents
had been typed by Priscilla Hiss and given to him by Alger
Hiss at some time between January 5 and April 15, 1938. He
asked me to examine the original documents closely, and give
him my opinion as to whether this testimony was correct.
I have done so, and am satisfied that Chambers' testimony
on this point cannot possibly be correct. The following are
my more significant conclusions; I am prepared to support
and illustrate each of them in detail on the stand if given
an opportunity.
1.
No one person typed the Baltimore Documents. There were certainly
two typists, whose work varied sharply in evenness of pressure,
typing skill, mechanical understanding and control of the
machine, style habits, and other similar respects; no one
person's work could exhibit such differences. It is quite
possible that more than two typists were involved.
2.
Since certainly more than one person typed the Baltimore Documents,
Priscilla Hiss cannot have typed them all. Furthermore, the
characteristics of her typing make it perfectly clear that
she was not either of the two principal typists involved.
I base this conclusion to a considerable extent upon such
factors, not clearly observable except from the original documents,
as typing rhythm, pressure habits and variations, quality
of touch, pace of typing, relative competence of the two hands,
and the like. My conclusion from these factors is borne out
by many other differentiating characteristics in such matters
as style, mechanical skill, and habits of mind. Priscilla
Hiss did not in my opinion type any of the Baltimore Documents.
*
* *
ELIZABETH MCCARTHY
Sworn
to before me this
19th
day of April, 1952,
SIDNEY
N. TOWLE, JR., NOTARY
|
