They include Joe Navarro, a recently retired FBI agent in Tampa; Renee C. Martin, a document specialist based in Princeton, N.J.; and Linda James, a forensic document examiner in suburban Dallas. .
Besides forgery, Navarro is an expert in espionage and the psychology of deception. Based on this, the Tribune asked Navarro to review a number of additional documents in the case. They included a transcript of an interview of Holder conducted by a military investigator; a sworn statement from Holder, as well as others submitted in his defense; and the sworn pretrial testimony of key witnesses, including Holder. .
`Perfect Knowledge' .
Navarro based his conclusions in the Holder matter on three considerations, he said, each of which would have caused him to dig deeper had he been assigned to investigate the case. .
The first is a principle known as ``perfect knowledge.'' To avoid detection, a forged document must be mistake-free, meaning its creator must have perfect knowledge of everything needed to make it: subject matter, word usage, specialized terms, handwriting and format. This is where forgers slip up - perfection is seldom if ever attained. .
In this case, a forger would have needed perfect knowledge not only of the topic Holder chose to write about but also the telltale work habits of the person who graded Holder's paper, Lt. Col. William Howe. .
For example, the disputed paper contains extensive grading notes in handwriting that Howe has authenticated as his own. The notes appear on pages alleged to have been plagiarized and on those that are not. In some cases, lines connect a note to a specific point in the text. .
Each note is on point and knowledgeably written, meaning someone forging these would have needed a degree of expertise - in other words, perfect knowledge - on the paper's subject roughly equivalent to Howe's. .
A forger also would have needed to mimic Howe's handwriting perfectly, and the manner in which Howe expresses thoughts.
