The documents were purported to have originated in the Special Security Section, run by Saddam's second son, Qusay.However, the Monitor's documents were different in many details from those of the Daily Telegraph, and came from a different source.He has denounced all stories to that effect, and threatened to sue both the Daily Telegraph and the Monitor for libel.On May 11, a report in the British paper The Mail on Sunday disputed the authenticity of documents obtained from the same source as the Monitor's documents.The rank of the signatories and the path of the documents through the bureaucracy seemed appropriate.The dates on two of the documents matched up to known visits of Galloway to Iraq. The second to examine the papers was Gerald Richards, a forensics document examiner.Click on a linked entry in the member's address to access the member's website.An asterisk (*) adjacent to the member's name indicates that the examiner is also certified by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE).
Government examiners who also accept private matters are listed.
The Mail's article said its writer had purchased other documents from the general alleging payoffs to Galloway.
Those documents, unlike the Monitor's, included purported Galloway signatures."Extensive examination of the documents by experts has proved they are fakes, bearing crude attempts to forge the MP's signature," said the Mail on Sunday's May 11 story. In light of this new information bearing on the credibility of the source of the Monitor's alleged Galloway papers, editors decided to consult document experts in the United States to see if the papers could be proved either false or genuine.
The Arabic text of the papers is inconsistent with known examples of Baghdad bureaucratic writing, and is replete with problematic language, says a leading US-based expert on Iraqi government documents.
Signature lines and other format elements differ from genuine procedure.
A former chief of the document operations and research unit at the FBI, Mr.