The documents this fellow examined were not originals.
If they were CBS would not have said: . . . . . AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH.
CBS would have simply stated we worked with the originals perhaps like so: AND ARE FAR REMOVED FROM THE ORIGINALS OF THE DOCUMENTS CBS STARTED WITH. They didn't. So we are now faced with only 1 question, were the documents copies or copies of copies?
CBS could easily have addressed this issue. They didn't and I therefore contend they have to be copies of copies.
The source of the documents obviously wishes to remain anonymous but there was a way for the source to provide CBS with absolute certainty the documents were copies of originals. All that had to be done was to take the originals and copies to a Notary Public and have the photocopies certified as copies of the originals. The Notary Public would have used his or her seal on the copies. CBS could have then copied the the Notarized copies blocking out the Notary Public's stamp, signature, etc
If this had been done CBS would be able to state and prove CBS's expert was looking at either a first or second generation photocopy (Father = Notarized 1st photocopy, son = Notarized information blocked out on 2nd photocopy). CBS's Dan Rather did not attempt in anyway to clarify whether we were looking at a copy or a copy of a copy. They did show copies during the broadcast. No Notary Public information was on any of the documents. My conclusion is the documents are copies of copies, 2nd generation copies at best.
Also, and this is extremely important, this fellow (Marcel) is a handwriting expert. He did not examined the typing on the documents, he examined only the signatures on the documents therefore Marcel's opinion on authenticity is limited to the signatures. The signature is not what is being challenged it is the typing. Marcel offers no opinion on the typing.