Spycraft - Melton [183]
Walker’s productions, the post-World War II émigré “paper mills,” Soviet “active measures,” and even Ben Franklin’s forgeries, all played on the preexisting fears and prejudices of the intended audience or buyers.42 Just as important as the quality of the forgery, the Soviets well knew, was the ability of the forger to assess the emotional sensibilities of their targets. That is to say, a document confirming the fears of a target audience was likely to be believed, even if it was not perfect.43 In the opinion of President Ahmed Sékou Touré of Guinea during the early 1970s, “Documents can be forged, but the information is true.” 44
For Crown and other techs working with questioned documents, the discrediting of quality forgeries involved precise procedures and laborious, complex processes. Questioned signatures could be compared with known exemplars of an alleged writer. Examiners made comparisons of inks using ultraviolet light, infrared radiation, and the microscopic examination of ink tracks. To assist its examiners, the QDL maintained a collection of envelopes, inks, and specimens from typewriter fonts that could reveal the make, model, and date of manufacture. QDL files were always searched for evidence of prior use of specific typewriters in previous forgeries. The older typewriters with “swinging key bars,” IBM Selectrics, and daisy-wheel typewriters could sometimes be identified by specific wear or damage to characters.
Paper analysis under x-ray diffraction and microscopic examination of fibers could identify paper filler type and establish the source of paper pulp. Because countries used different inorganic chemicals as paper fillers, the origin of the paper could be compared to the alleged identity of the forger. For example, German paper would be filled with barium sulfate; French paper utilized talc. To the QDL examiner a document on paper containing barium sulfate that was said to originate in southern France became suspect.
With the introduction of photocopy technology, the Soviets began creating forgeries in the form of multigenerational copies to counter scientific examination. The technique assumed that laboratory analysis of photocopies could not establish whether a document was authentic. TSD examiners, however, found traces of evidence on photocopy documents that revealed clues of fabrication and sometimes even the origin of a suspect document. Details such as minor differences between font balls used on IBM Selectrics sold in Europe and those sold in the States could be detected in photocopies.
Subtle linguistic differences could reveal a document as a forgery. In one instance, a purported official U.S. document was labeled RESTRICTED! but carried a date after the U.S. government had ceased using the designation.45 Another telltale sign were formats used in official letters. A government organization might use the date format of “July 4, 1990” or “4 July 1990” but one form would be consistent on all official documents.46
While scientific analysis could confirm the authenticity of a document, determining the ultimate source of a forgery was more elusive. In this regard, the QDL examiners would offer their opinion based primarily on the forgery’s delivery, audience, and public replay. To this end, the basic thrust of the document examination included consideration of the decidedly nontechnical question: Who would benefit if the documents were believed? Through the combined skills of QDL examiners and counterintelligence specialists, data such as when a document surfaced and how it became known were evaluated to match prior modus operandi. “We found during the 1960s and 1970s,” Crown observed, “that the Soviets could produce excellent technical forgeries but were rarely ever able to disguise