Roger Hooper - Guilty

[barrysloate]

Matt- in the case against Hooper, Jimmy Spence was called in and testified that Hooper was selling fake sigs. He could do the same against CC or anyone else.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Matt- in the case against Hooper, Jimmy Spence was called in and testified that Hooper was selling fake sigs. He could do the same against CC or anyone else.

Barry - it seemed that the key to his testimony was seeing the dot patterns from a dot matrix printer on the sigs. From what I understand, these were not hand made forgeries, but rather printed ones, which are much easier to prove conclusively. Assuming a forgery is done in the correct pen, on the correct medium, I'd think it difficult to legally prove that it wasn't done by a certain individual - maybe he signed when he had something in his eye, or signed in an airplane where his movement was restricted or any number of reasons a sig might look different then a normal exemplar.

[barrysloate]

Matt- agreed the dot matrix ones were easy to tell. But can't an expert witness testify that even a signature rendered in ink is no good?