“Yes sir.”
“Okay, guys,” said the director, turning to the two internal affairs specialists. “Are they authentic or not?”
Jeff looked at Rob, who looked back at Jeff, who looked at the director.
“We have been able to ascertain that both documents were, as the Times reported, prepared on the same word-processing system and printed by the same printer. That is, we find corresponding letter eccentricities, imperfections, spacing issues, and misalignments in each document consistent with the same in the other document. I can show you our courtroom presentation exhibits if you want, Mr. Director.”
“I’ll take your word for it. So that means they’re authentic?”
A brief look passed between Rob and Jeff, which then fluttered to Nick, then back to the director.
“That’s what the evidence suggests, sir.”
“Suggests? Interesting choice of word.”
“Yes sir.”
“What would suggests mean, as opposed to proves?”
“Sir, it means that wherever that word processor/printer is, that specific one, a Hewlett Packard 960 with the capacity to print in a font called MacPhearson Business 3, that is the origin of the letter and the copied-over notes and comments. As for the receipts, all are photocopies in various hands, which might be authenticated later on, assuming there is a later on.”
“Hmm,” said the director. “So if I get this right, what you’re saying is that the two key documents were from the same typewriter?”
“Word-processing system software, printer hardware, sir.”
“But the same machine. The same physical object, right?”
“Yes sir.”
“I see. And the fact that one of the documents was an officially notarized and authenticated submission from the factory headquarters itself-you wouldn’t regard that as proof? I don’t understand.”
“Well, I hate to say this, sir, but it depends on the meaning of is. Yes, the documents are-present participle collective declination of is-from the machine. Yes, that machine printed out a document located in our files and thereby officially designated as having come from the gun company. However-”
“However?” said the director. “I hate however.”
“Yes sir.”
“Okay, let’s have the however.”
“However, as the document was kept in the files of the Sniper Rifle Oversight Committee, which is held under extremely loose security in Admin and Logistics-after all, remember, someone leaked a copy of it to the Times-there’s no way of authenticating that document. I should say, no way accessible to us at this point in the investigation.”
“Our next step, sir,” said the one called Rob, or maybe it was the one called Jeff, “would be to obtain search warrants from the federal district court in Columbia, and examine each word-processing system on FN property, and determine if one of them-presumably in the CEO’s office-matches up. Then you’d have a good case that the origin of both documents was the CEO office in Columbia, South Carolina. But absent locating that machine, and given the lax security in Admin and Logistics-”
“I think I saw a memo on that,” said the director glumly. “But if the documents aren’t from Columbia, South Carolina, then that would lead to a highly implausible scenario, right? I mean, what are the odds on it being fake? Pretty remote, right? I mean, for it to be fake, one of our own people would have had to sneak into the files, filch the submission document, take it out of here, reprint the company letterhead in some convincing way, recopy the submission letter, then type up the commentary, replace the faked submission document in our files where it could later be found, and leak the commentary to the Times reporter. Then the reporter would have to find somebody to leak him a copy of the submission document. Pretty elaborate hoax. Is that logical to assume?”
“Sir, we can’t comment on odds. We don’t investigate odds. We can only prove that the docs came from the one machine. We need authorization to proceed, and while we have requested it, it is not forthcoming.”
“So basically, we have… nothing.”
“Not until we get that subpoena, find that machine. People think documents are magic, but the truth is, in cases of law their application is usually surprisingly limited. We need that application approved to get that subpoena.”
“I’ll see if I can’t shake it out of the tree for you,” said the director. “Okay, fellows, you can go. Good job.”
They smiled drily at Nick, collected their undisplayed exhibit, and trundled out.
“Well, guy,” said the director, “you dodged that bullet for a little while at least. I must say, I thought the Times had made a pretty convincing case, even without the photo.”
Nick nodded.
“Hmm,” said the director. “Well, let’s see what we can make of the photo itself. All right, Nick?”
“Yes sir.”
“All right, for the record, can I ask you to state categorically your position on the photo, which appeared today on the front page of the Times.”
“Yes sir. I have no recollection of ever having traveled to Columbia, South Carolina, and visiting the corporate headquarters of FN USA, not in 2006, not ever. I have no recollection of shooting a one-point-seven-inch three-hundred-yard group with what the caption identifies as an FN PSR.308 rifle at their firing range and no recollection of posing for a picture with any executives of that company.”
“Yet this photo exists that shows you doing exactly that. The photo has been authenticated by the newspaper.”
“Sir, let me point out, the photo hasn’t been ‘authenticated.’ It has been characterized by a photo lab as having ‘no fractal discrepancies suggestive of photo manipulation.’ It’s the same difference as the previous document situation. Lack of evidence doesn’t prove anything except lack of evidence. Photo interpreters and analysts, like document interpreters and analysts, don’t ‘authenticate’ in the pure sense; they only testify to the presence or absence of discrepancies and from that come to an inference, a best professional guess.”
“Noted. But again, for a photo to pass muster without discrepancies, it would either have to be authentic as stated or it would have to have been manipulated by technicians of such skill and with access to such sophisticated, not to say expensive, equipment that it is highly unlikely to be found in the private sector, right?”
“Sir, I have no opinion on that. I haven’t looked into what equipment is or isn’t available. It’s beyond my area of expertise. You’d have to get expert opinion.”
“Yes, I agree, and in fact, I’ve already started the process to obtain the original from the Times by subpoena and place it with top people in the field for a confirmation. I’ve also examined the reputation of the Times’s investigating entity, Donex Photo Interpretations, and it is top-rate. It’s bonded, gives frequent expert testimony in legal cases, and has a worldwide reputation.”
“Yes sir.”
“Nick, is there anything about this photo you want to tell me? This is the killer, you understand. I don’t know what I can do about this situation with this photo on the front page of the Times and leading every network news show tonight. The presence of the photo is pushing the action, and for the sake of the Bureau, I have to be ahead of the action, not behind it. If there’s anything, tell me now. If, for God’s sake, you made a mistake, tell me now. We can deal with it. A quiet resignation, a saved pension, recommendation to positions in the private sector. If I have to formally suspend you and Professional Responsibility files a complaint and it goes to formal hearing, there’s nothing I can do for you. Your record is so damned good, I’d hate to see it end like this.”