The “perforated edge” (and certain other characteristics like the noise above and below the type throughout, but especially visible in the last paragraph with the witness signature) of the second image is due to artifacts from compression and/or enlargement to the point of pixillation. Both images, though, show wear on folds to the point of perforation (on the fold above the line above “August” on the bottom and on the fold in the field containing “Stanley Ann”. All the folds are the same. The tear in the upper right edge is the only real difference. This could be explained by that edge being on the outside of the folded up document and getting damaged in transit over the period of time following the time the first image was made. An almost 50 year old piece of paper folded and being smuggled out could easily be subject to damage from humidity, heat, and movement that its appearance could be slightly changed without having to appeal to an attempt to make it look older to explain the differences. As far as age goes, I’ve seen printed material that is over 300 years old that is as clean and white as the day it was printed because the paper, according to the curator at Casa del Libro in San Juan, was linen. The greater the amount of wood pulp, the greater the aging.
The second has obviously been photoshopped from the first. You can overlay the wto (in phtoshop, for example) and they are identical. Noone can do that with two images, separately taken.
That’s not a tear. Magnify it and you’ll see the same jaggy edges as the edges of the paper. It’s just someone messing with the original.
Does anyone know where the ‘torn’ version came from?