I have searched high and low for specifics on the Model D, but have found only cites that appear to list the exact same bits of information that have nothing specific enough to form an opinion on. Nor have I seen examples of writing from it that would allow any conclusions.
I did find reference to the latest Washington Post article, however, which mentions this machine:
Thomas Phinney, program manager for fonts for the Adobe company in Seattle, which helped to develop the modern Times New Roman font, disputed Glennon’s statement to CBS. He said “fairly extensive testing†had convinced him that the fonts and formatting used in the CBS documents could not have been produced by the most sophisticated IBM typewriters in use in 1972, including the Selectric and the Executive. He said the two systems used fonts of different widths.
Note that the CBS consultant was not allowed to look at the actual documents in CBS' possession, either, but had to use the same PDFs everyone else is looking at.
Summary:
Pro CBS: A typewriter repair guy that says he *cannot authenticate the documents*, but who asserts that these *types* of features were available.
Con CBS: Adobe guy that says *after testing* that he is convinced neither the Selectric nor Executive could have produced this memo.
Conclusion: Bolsters the case for forgery.
If the text is so easy to duplicate, why doesn't one of the mysterious experts used by CBS simply produce a document showing it? There are thousands of the typewriters available; surely CBS can manage to get ahold of one *somewhere*.
Conclusion: Allows inference that it cannot be done. Hardly conclusive, but it certainly has trouble passing the smell test.
For that matter, why doesn't CBS just release what documents they have to a panel of experts and let them have a look at the pages for themselves?
Conclusion: Under the circumstances, almost *compels* an inference against CBS. If 60 minutes were claiming someone else had forged documents in their possession, do you think for a moment that the failure to produce those documents and have them tested by independent experts would be accepted?
CNN experts (multiple) conclude forgery. ABC experts conclude forgery. Pentagon states forgery. CBS (other division) expert states forgery probable. Washington post experts conclude forgery.
Most telling for me -- and what pushed me out of the wait-and-see camp -- was the defense put forward by Mr. Rather. It failed to fairly meet the substance of the criticisms against CBS and relied on experts that have indicated that they did *not* say what is being attributed to them.
CBS also relied on anonymous experts that it will not reveal, even though people it consulted later are pushed forward hastily if anyhting they say can be considered useful. If CBS won't name their experts and show their reasoning, then the claim that such experts exist -- especially given how the handwriting expert has now claimed that his limited opinion was distorted by CBS -- is worthless.
Finally, CBS states that the papers come from an unimpeachable, yet anonymous, source.
Sorry, you don't get both. It is, of course, literally true that the source is unimpeachable -- since we aren't told who it is, we can hardly impeach him/her -- but you cannot simultaneously hide a person's identity and hold their hidden identity as support for your position.
CBS may well be entitled to hide the identity of a source (assuming the memos are authentic for the moment). However, that protection is a *shield* meant for protection. Instead, CBS is using it as a sword -- claiming that an anonymous source is unimpeachable or trustworthy without revealing their identity is just a convoluted way of saying "trust me." It isn't evidence; it isn't support; it isn't a credible defense.
N/A
