- 19 -
both agreed that Sloan's purported signatures on the stock
certificates and checks were not genuine.
Neither expert was able to conclude that it was David who had
forged Sloan's signature.2 Respondent's expert observed
“indications” that David forged his father's signature on the stock
certificates and checks. Petitioner's expert could not opine as to
who authored the forged Sloan signatures because the documents he
was provided with were photocopies, not originals.
On the basis of the entire record before us, we conclude that
(1) Sloan's signatures on the stock certificates and checks were
not genuine, and (2) David forged his father's signatures on the
stock certificates and checks. With these conclusions in mind, we
now address the substantive issues before us.
2 Following several conference calls with the Court,
David provided two handwriting exemplars in London, England, on
Jan. 28 and Feb. 27, 1999, overseen by an Internal Revenue
Service representative (but not the expert witnesses herein).
In examining the London exemplars, respondent's expert
concluded that David was attempting to deliberately disguise his
own natural handwriting. Petitioner's expert admitted that
although David's London exemplars contained the classic signs of
disguise, he could not opine as to whether David had disguised
those exemplars because he did not personally observe David
performing the exemplars. We accept the opinion of respondent's
expert and conclude that David deliberately attempted to disguise
his own handwriting.
The parties' experts were provided with copies of the
following: The London exemplars; the stock certificates
representing the 110,000 shares, and checks; and known collected
writings, such as other “normal business exemplars”.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011