0001
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
2 ATLANTA DIVISION
3 ROBERT CHRISTIAN WOLF,
4 Plaintiff,
CASE NO. 00-CIV-1187(JEC)
5 vs.
6 JOHN BENNETT RAMSEY and
PATRICIA PAUGH RAMSEY,
7
Defendants.
8 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF
10
GIDEON EPSTEIN
11
12 May 17, 2002
9:35 a.m.
13
191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
14 Atlanta, Georgia
15
16 Valerie N. Almand, RPR, CCR-B-531
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
0002
1 APPEARANCES
2 On behalf of the Plaintiff Robert Christian Wolf:
3 EVAN M. ALTMAN, Esquire
4 Lake Forrest Place
5 6085 Lake Forrest Drive, Suite 300-B
6 Atlanta, Georgia 30328
7 (404) 845-0695
8 .
9 DARNAY HOFFMAN, Esquire (via telephonic means)
10 Law Offices of Darnay Hoffman
11 Suite 209
12 210 West 70th Street
13 New York, New York 10023
14 (212) 712-2766
15 .
16 On behalf of the Defendants, John Bennett Ramsey and
17 Patricia Paugh Ramsey:
18 JAMES RAWLS, Esquire
19 ERIC P. SCHROEDER, Esquire
20 Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, L.L.P.
21 Sixteenth Floor
22 191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
23 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
24 (404) 572-6600
25 //
0003
1 L. LIN WOOD, Esquire
2 L. Lin Wood, P.C.
3 2140 The Equitable Building
4 100 Peachtree Street
5 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
6 (404) 522-1713
7 .
8 Also Present:
9 John Ramsey
10 Matt Wood
11 .
12 .
13 .
14 .
15 .
16 .
17 .
18 .
19 .
20 .
21 .
22 .
23 .
24 .
25 .
0004
1 Deposition of Gideon Epstein
2 May 17, 2002
3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are now on the
4 record, and the time is 9:34 a.m.
5 MR. RAWLS: Very good. Let me make
6 a brief stipulation by way of beginning.
7 Darnay, can you hear me?
8 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes.
9 MR. RAWLS: This is the deposition
10 of Mr. Gideon Epstein. The deposition is taken
11 of Mr. Epstein as an expert for the plaintiff,
12 Robert Christian Wolf, in this case.
13 The deposition is being taken at a
14 time and place determined by agreement of
15 counsel and formalized thereafter by a notice
16 issued by the defendants.
17 The deposition is taken for all
18 proper purposes under the Federal Rules of Civil
19 Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
20 Is that a suitable stipulation, Evan
21 and Darnay?
22 MR. ALTMAN: Yes, it is.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Yes, it is.
24 MR. ALTMAN: Jim, one preliminary
25 thing. Did you also want to limit the
0005
1 objections, the usual objection sort of thing?
2 I don't know if you mentioned that.
3 MR. RAWLS: Yes, let's agree as I
4 believe the rules provide that all objections
5 except as to the form of the question and as
6 to the responsiveness of the answer will be
7 reserved until the time of the trial, hearing or
8 other use of the deposition testimony.
9 MR. ALTMAN: That is acceptable.
10 MR. RAWLS: Darnay, is that --
11 MR. HOFFMAN: In fact, in New York
12 we usually, when we sit down we say usual
13 stips. That's fine, absolutely.
14 GIDEON EPSTEIN, having been first
15 duly sworn, was examined and deposed as
16 follows:
17 EXAMINATION
18 BY-MR.RAWLS:
19 Q. Mr. Epstein, tell us, please, your
20 full name.
21 A. Gideon Epstein, G-I-D-E-O-N, Epstein,
22 E-P-S-T-E-I-N.
23 Q. Do you have a middle name?
24 A. I do not.
25 Q. And have you ever had?
0006
1 A. Never had a middle name. Two was
2 always enough, thank you.
3 Q. Have you ever had a different name?
4 A. Never had a different name.
5 Q. Your date of birth, please?
6 A. July 6th, 1938.
7 Q. And place of birth?
8 A. Riga, Latvia, that's spelled R-I-G-A.
9 Q. At birth were you a U.S. citizen?
10 A. I was not. I'm a naturalized
11 citizen. I was naturalized in 1956.
12 Q. Mr. Epstein, where do you make your
13 home, sir?
14 A. In Rockville, Maryland.
15 Q. And how long have you lived there?
16 A. I've lived in Rockville since 1988.
17 Prior to that I lived in Gaithersburg, Maryland,
18 just a short distance from there.
19 Q. When did you first come to the U.S.?
20 A. I came to the United States in July
21 of 1946.
22 Q. At approximately the age of --
23 A. Eight.
24 Q. -- eight. Shortly after your 8th
25 birthday.
0007
1 A. That's right.
2 Q. Would you describe for us,
3 Mr. Epstein, what you understand to be your
4 engagement in the case of Robert Christian Wolf
5 against John and Patsy Ramsey?
6 A. My engagement in the case, as I see
7 it, is to conduct forensic handwriting
8 examinations of the disputed ransom note, in
9 conjunction with the known handwriting that I
10 was provided of the Ramseys, and attempt to
11 establish, if possible, through that forensic
12 examination whether there was common authorship
13 between the known writing and the disputed
14 ransom note.
15 Q. When were you first retained in this
16 case?
17 A. I was first retained in this case
18 about a little less than two years ago, I
19 believe.
20 Q. Can you be more specific?
21 A. No, because originally I became
22 involved in this case in a sort of an
23 unofficial capacity as a result of reviewing the
24 documents that another document examiner who was
25 in the case was looking at, Larry Zieglar.
0008
1 At the time I was the chief document
2 examiner at the immigration laboratory and
3 Mr. Zieglar was a contractor for me, and so I
4 became aware of the documents and I saw the
5 documents prior to officially becoming involved,
6 but like I say, the best I can recall is that
7 it was about two years.
8 Q. When you were first retained did you
9 agree to assist for a fee?
10 A. No, I did not. In fact, I -- prior
11 to being officially retained and while still an
12 employee of the department of justice, I
13 contacted the ethics officer at the Immigration
14 and Naturalization Service and asked for
15 permission to become involved in the case on a
16 pro bono basis, and that permission was granted,
17 and it was at that time that I became involved
18 officially in the case, and there was -- I had,
19 from the beginning it was a pro bono basis
20 case.
21 Q. Has that ever changed?
22 A. Not -- actually, I did receive a fee
23 for the Article 26 report, but prior to that I
24 had put in more than 50 hours of examination
25 time in the case for which I did not bill
0009
1 anyone.
2 Q. What was your fee for the Rule 26
3 report?
4 A. Twelve hundred dollars.
5 Q. And was that paid?
6 A. It was.
7 Q. Do you now consider yourself a pro
8 bono expert or a for fee expert?
9 A. I consider myself a pro bono expert.
10 Q. And would you describe your reason,
11 please, for taking this matter on a pro bono
12 basis?
13 A. I've been involved in this profession
14 for 35 years, and have always considered that
15 the forensic sciences have a responsibility to
16 the criminal justice system, and I've felt very
17 strongly about that throughout my entire
18 professional career.
19 I feel that the questioned document
20 profession let the criminal justice system down
21 in this particular case, and I feel very
22 strongly that I would, if possible, like to set
23 that straight.
24 I don't believe that the forensic
25 reports that have been rendered in this case
0010
1 thus far by those document examiners who earlier
2 examined these documents were correct, and I
3 don't believe that justice has been served, and
4 that's my only reason for becoming involved in
5 the case.
6 Q. Mr. Epstein, given all that, why did
7 you charge twelve hundred dollars for the Rule
8 26 report?
9 A. Because I had expenses and we all
10 have bills, and there were cases that I had
11 turn down that were fee cases.
12 In this kind of a case, you have to
13 be prepared to devote a great deal of time to
14 a case like this, and it's not a case that you
15 can bill for. It's not a case where every
16 hour can be counted and charged up to someone.
17 So there are, however, instances
18 where you do have static things, for instance,
19 this deposition is an example. It's a certain
20 number of hours that we know we're going to
21 devote to it and we can predict what we can
22 charge in it, and so therefore I think that to
23 work for two years on a case and sacrifice
24 other cases in place of it that you have to,
25 if you can, make up some of that, and I feel
0011
1 that that's the reason I charged for the -- the
2 twelve hundred dollars for the Article 26 report
3 as well as for this deposition, is because these
4 are sort of static hours that we know we've put
5 in and it's something that can easily be billed,
6 whereas the amount of time that we actually
7 devote to the examination of a case like this
8 can't really be counted.
9 Q. How many hours did you spend working
10 on the Rule 26 report?
11 A. Approximately ten hours.
12 Q. So the twelve hundred dollars charge
13 was approximately --
14 A. I charged for an eight-hour day.
15 Q. All right, sir. In fact, was it
16 suggested to you, Mr. Epstein, that you would
17 have trouble charging my clients for your time
18 today if you had not sent a bill for the Rule
19 26 report to Darnay Hoffman?
20 A. No, that was never mentioned to me
21 at all.
22 Q. That was never any part of your
23 thinking?
24 A. No, never part of my thinking.
25 Q. And if that was part of anyone
0012
1 else's thinking, that was never shared with you.
2 A. If it was someone else's thinking it
3 was never shared with me, no. In fact, if
4 there had been any indication that there would
5 be difficulty collecting a fee for today, I
6 would have been very happy to come here without
7 a fee.
8 Q. Mr. Epstein, in this case counsel
9 have been furnished by your side's attorneys,
10 Mr. Altman and Mr. Hoffman, a document that is
11 styled plaintiff's disclosure of expert
12 testimony. On Page 2 of that document there's
13 a paragraph, in fact could you take a look at
14 the second full paragraph on Page 2 --
15 A. Mr. Epstein is being compensated
16 (inaudible). Yes. The twelve hundred dollars I
17 received for the Article 26 report, I have a
18 photographer who prepared all of my charts, he
19 received eight hundred dollars, that makes up
20 the two thousand dollars as far as the amount.
21 I didn't feel I could ask my photographer to
22 work pro bono. He has expenses, and so he was
23 paid eight hundred dollars for the preparation
24 of the charts.
25 Q. Mr. Epstein, would you look on with
0013
1 me and tell me if I am reading this paragraph
2 correctly? "Mr. Epstein is being compensated
3 for his report and testimony at the rate of two
4 hundred dollars per hour for his trial and
5 deposition testimony, and at the rate of one
6 hundred fifty dollars per hour for his
7 laboratory examination and discovery report. To
8 date Mr. Epstein has paid -- excuse me, has
9 been paid two thousand dollars."
10 Have I read that correctly.
11 A. You've read it correctly, but I'm
12 not exactly sure what is meant by that. I can
13 only tell you what I received and my
14 understanding.
15 I think that it was always
16 understood that the majority of my work and my
17 examination time would be on a pro bono basis.
18 The only fee that I've received has been the
19 twelve hundred dollars for the Article 26
20 report, which was invoiced at a hundred and
21 fifty dollars an hour for eight hours.
22 As far as any understanding, at the
23 time that the report was provided, I don't know
24 that there was any discussion about testimony
25 fees, so that's my understanding of it.
0014
1 Q. Mr. Epstein, did your familiarity
2 with Chris Wolf play any part in your decision
3 to do any work on this case pro bono?
4 A. I don't know Chris Wolf.
5 Q. Do you know anything about
6 Mr. Wolf's situation, his story, his career, his
7 background, his plight, if you will?
8 A. I know nothing about Mr. Wolf, and
9 that's intentional.
10 Q. May I say I don't blame you.
11 Are you familiar with Mr. Wolf's
12 career in the entertainment industry?
13 A. As I say, I don't know anything
14 about Mr. Wolf at all.
15 Q. And why was it intentional that you
16 learned nothing about Mr. Wolf?
17 A. Because it's always been my policy
18 as a document examiner not to involve myself
19 with those outside things in a case that have
20 nothing to do with the documents that I examine.
21 Q. Mr. Epstein, you testified earlier
22 that forensic reports by members of your
23 document examination profession thus far in
24 connection with the ransom note found at the
25 home of John and Patsy Ramsey have not been
0015
1 correct.
2 A. That's my feeling, yes.
3 Q. Which of those reports have you
4 read?
5 A. I've read the report by Howard Rile,
6 and I've read the report by Lloyd Cunningham.
7 I think those are the only written reports that
8 I recall seeing. I know that there were other
9 document examiners who came to a similar
10 conclusion, but I don't know if they ever put
11 those findings into a written report.
12 Q. So the only reports that you have
13 observed are those provided in this case by the
14 Ramseys' experts, Howard Rile and Lloyd
15 Cunningham; is that correct?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. What, if anything, have those reports
18 had to do with the criminal justice system, sir?
19 A. They have had nothing to do with the
20 criminal justice system.
21 Q. You testified earlier that members of
22 your profession had, in your opinion, let the
23 criminal justice system down in this case; did
24 you not, sir?
25 A. I did, because I think that
0016
1 originally if the examinations had been conducted
2 in a different manner that the results would
3 have been such that it may have become a
4 criminal justice matter.
5 Q. But the fact is you don't know how
6 those original document examination reports were
7 done at all; do you, sir?
8 A. Well, I know what the findings were
9 of the people that did it.
10 Q. Do you know the names of the people
11 that made the examinations?
12 A. I know that the people from the
13 Colorado bureau conducted examinations that were
14 inconclusive. I don't recall now the person
15 that did it, an older gentleman, I can see his
16 face, I can't recall his name. But there were
17 certainly forensic examinations done at the time
18 that there was a criminal investigation into
19 this matter.
20 Obviously that was significant
21 evidence in this case, and so therefore that had
22 to have been done, and I know that those
23 conclusions were inconclusive.
24 Q. The fact is, you know nothing about
25 the manner in which any of the experts retained
0017
1 by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation rendered
2 their examinations, their analyses and their
3 conclusions; am I not correct?
4 A. Specifically, I don't know what they
5 concluded, but generally I know that the
6 conclusions were inconclusive.
7 Q. Mr. Epstein, I want to come back
8 later to the subject of the other reports and
9 analyses of handwriting that were done as part
10 of the criminal justice part of the
11 investigation of the murder of JonBenet Ramsey.
12 I'll come back to that later. I want to learn
13 a little bit more about you, if you don't
14 mind --
15 A. Not at all.
16 Q. -- sharing some additional information
17 with us.
18 First I'd like to know how you
19 prepared for this deposition.
20 A. I prepared for the deposition by
21 going over the work that I had done in this
22 case and going over my report and the
23 illustrations that are attached to it.
24 Q. Did you confer with any of the
25 attorneys for Mr. Wolf before this deposition in
0018
1 preparation?
2 A. I did not.
3 (WHEREUPON, Defendant's Exhibit Number
4 1 was marked for identification).
5 MR. ALTMAN: Jim, with respect to
6 the last question, when you say conferred, I
7 mean, we had discussions regarding the case. I
8 guess my question is could you maybe be a
9 little bit more specific about what you want to
10 know regarding that?
11 MR. RAWLS: Thank you, Evan.
12 Q. Mr. Epstein, what I want to know is
13 did you consult Mr. Altman or Mr. Hoffman about
14 this deposition?
15 A. I did not.
16 Q. Were you told anything about the
17 testimony earlier this week of Ms. Cina Wong?
18 A. I learned of that testimony this
19 morning.
20 Q. From whom did you learn of that?
21 A. From Mr. Altman.
22 Q. Have you ever seen Ms. Wong's
23 report?
24 A. Yes, I did, almost two years ago.
25 I believe it was shown to me when I first
0019
1 became involved in this case.
2 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim.
3 MR. RAWLS: Yes.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: I'd just like to add
5 a note here, it can be on or off the record.
6 Mr. Epstein has never been shown the most recent
7 report by Cina Wong.
8 THE WITNESS: No, the most recent
9 one, the one I saw was several years old.
10 MR. RAWLS: I certainly take
11 Mr. Epstein at his word that if he saw a Cina
12 Wong report two years ago it could not have
13 been what Ms. Wong has later put together.
14 But Darnay, thank you for your
15 explanation.
16 BY MR. RAWLS:
17 Q. Mr. Epstein, may I show you a
18 document that has been marked Defendant's
19 Exhibit-1 to your deposition? What is this,
20 please, sir?
21 A. This is my fee schedule.
22 Q. Did you provide that to Mr. Hoffman
23 and Mr. Altman?
24 A. I think I did at one time, but I
25 never, I never really adhered to this fee
0020
1 schedule.
2 Q. And does anything on this fee
3 schedule indicate that you are serving in this
4 case pro bono?
5 A. It does not.
6 Q. And do you know that this was given
7 us as if it were your fee schedule in this
8 case by Mr. Hoffman and Mr. Altman?
9 A. I'm not aware of under what
10 conditions that was given to you, but I can
11 tell you that I think they both understand that
12 I'm working this case on a pro bono basis.
13 Q. I don't know what they understand, I
14 only know what they have given me to believe
15 before today, Mr. Epstein, and that was this
16 Defendant's Exhibit 1.
17 A. And that, I'm not aware of.
18 Q. You did not thorough Mr. Hoffman or
19 Mr. Altman to misrepresent to me your fee; did
20 you, sir?
21 MR. ALTMAN: Object as to the form.
22 A. No, I know nothing about this whole
23 matter of the fee. I think it was rather
24 clear from the very beginning that I was working
25 this case on a pro bono basis. It hasn't
0021
1 changed, and it will not change.
2 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim.
3 MR. RAWLS: Yes.
4 MR. HOFFMAN: Did I include with
5 that the letter of agreement that I had signed
6 with Mr. Epstein, I think it was in January or
7 late December, whereby I had agreed in a letter
8 agreement with him -- it was one page -- to,
9 you know, pay him for his time and whatever
10 else? I don't know if that was included there.
11 MR. RAWLS: I don't think so,
12 Darnay.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Okay, because I have
14 it, and I don't know if I can find it like
15 during this deposition period, but I can fax
16 your office a copy of it.
17 MR. WOOD: Why don't you do that?
18 MR. RAWLS: That will be
19 appreciated.
20 MR. HOFFMAN: Because I think
21 there's some confusion here. There was a period
22 late December, early January where I got an
23 e-mail from Mr. Epstein to the effect that
24 because there was so much time involved in the
25 case that he needed at the very least nominal
0022
1 compensation, and he faxed me a -- and, Gideon,
2 I don't know if you remember this or not --
3 faxed me a letter of understanding, agreement,
4 whatever you want to call it, it was a couple
5 of paragraphs, which I signed, duly signed and
6 faxed back to him, and that's the basis by
7 which it was my understanding that he would be
8 appearing at least for parts of the deposition
9 as a paid consultant.
10 So there's been no attempt to try to
11 misrepresent Mr. Epstein's understanding or my
12 understanding. There may be a little confusion
13 here. And to clear that up, I will fax you a
14 copy of the agreement that Mr. Epstein had me
15 sign, I think it was in January or late
16 December.
17 MR. SCHROEDER: Darnay, Eric Shroeder
18 here. Would you mind faxing that to my
19 attention?
20 MR. HOFFMAN: To your attention,
21 Eric?
22 MR. SCHROEDER: Yes.
23 MR. HOFFMAN: Yeah, fine.
24 BY MR. RAWLS:
25 Q. Mr. Epstein, would you agree with me
0023
1 that for justice to be served candor is
2 necessary?
3 A. Absolutely.
4 Q. Are you, Mr. Epstein, a trained
5 graphologist?
6 A. I am not.
7 Q. Do you need to be a trained
8 graphologist in order to be a qualified forensic
9 document examiner?
10 A. No, you don't.
11 Q. Does graphology add anything to your
12 ability to be a qualified document -- forensic
13 document examiner?
14 A. I don't believe it does, no.
15 Q. What is graphology, sir?
16 A. The study and examination of
17 handwriting with the purpose of establishing a
18 person's personality and character traits.
19 Q. Do you do that?
20 A. I do not.
21 Q. Have you ever aspired to do that?
22 A. I have never aspired to do that.
23 Q. Does that business of graphology
24 impress you as a science?
25 A. It does not.
0024
1 Q. Does it have credibility with you in
2 any manner?
3 A. It does not.
4 Q. Do you believe in it?
5 A. I do not.
6 Q. When did you leave government
7 service, Mr. Epstein?
8 A. I left government service in December
9 of the year 2000.
10 Q. And at that time your employer had
11 been the United States Immigration and
12 Naturalization Service; am I correct?
13 A. Forensic document laboratory, that's
14 correct.
15 Q. And you were in charge of that
16 laboratory, if I'm not mistaken.
17 A. I was in charge of the forensic unit
18 of that laboratory. There's also an
19 intelligence unit that's a part of that
20 laboratory that I was not in charge of.
21 Q. When you sought permission to assist
22 Mr. Wolf pro bono, whose permission did you
23 seek?
24 A. I first went to the laboratory
25 director and then I went to the ethics officer
0025
1 at headquarters, INS, and received permission
2 from both of them.
3 Q. And the name of the lab director?
4 A. Katherine Sheehan, S-H-E-E-H-A-N, and
5 she's still the laboratory director today.
6 Q. And who is the ethics officer in
7 Washington?
8 A. That I can't remember. I did
9 receive an e-mail back from him, and Ms. Sheehan
10 would certainly know who the ethics officer is,
11 but I -- at the moment it slipped my mind who
12 he is.
13 Q. Do you still possess a copy of that
14 e-mail?
15 A. I probably do, yes.
16 Q. We would like to see that if you
17 will agree to --
18 A. Certainly.
19 Q. -- seek it, and if Mr. Hoffman and
20 Mr. Altman will agree to permit you to share it
21 with us.
22 MR. ALTMAN: We have no objection.
23 Darnay? No objection.
24 A. I will try to find that e-mail. I
25 know that I kept it because I felt that it was
0026
1 important in case I was ever asked why or how
2 or under what circumstances I became involved.
3 Q. If I have done my math right, you
4 are approximately 63 years old now, is that
5 correct?
6 A. Sixty-four, will be sixty-five in
7 July.
8 Q. And are you -- do you consider
9 yourself now to be semiretired, or a nonretired
10 businessman?
11 A. Well, I don't consider myself a
12 businessman. Actually I'm a pretty poor
13 businessman, I found. But I am, I would say,
14 semiretired although sometimes I feel that I'm
15 busier now than when I was working, so . . .
16 Q. How many hours in a typical week do
17 you practice your field of forensic document
18 examination?
19 A. I have a contract at the present
20 time with the immigration service forensic
21 document laboratory to train their new document
22 examiners, and I devote about five hours in the
23 morning, five days a week, to that.
24 And then in the afternoons I have a
25 private practice and I devote, depending on the
0027
1 cases, a good part of the afternoon to that.
2 So I would say that I devote probably pretty
3 close to eight hours a day to forensic document
4 examination.
5 Q. Well, that doesn't sound very retired
6 to me.
7 A. Sometimes it's not.
8 Q. Tell me what is involved in the
9 training program which -- or by which you train
10 immigration and naturalization service document
11 examiners, please.
12 A. Certainly. It's a 30-month program
13 at the laboratory where I was and where I'm
14 presently training people. The handwriting
15 portion of the training is approximately one
16 year in length, and it consists of a reading of
17 all of the recent and past literature, all of
18 the books on questioned document examination to
19 familiarize all of the trainees with the basic
20 principles of the profession.
21 It involves the reading of papers
22 and various research type projects that have
23 been conducted on the subject of handwriting.
24 It involves the study of handwriting systems,
25 and then a great portion of that training is an
0028
1 apprenticeship-type training where actual cases
2 are used, past cases where exhibits have been
3 photographed and retained and where the cases
4 are assigned, and then the trainees will work
5 them and the cases are critiqued, and they move
6 from that into actual life cases where original
7 documents are available, and this goes on for
8 about a year to build a base and a foundation
9 for knowing and understanding how the basic
10 principle for document examination apply to the
11 work.
12 Q. How many individuals are being
13 trained by you in the training program which you
14 are operating at present?
15 A. Right now there are three.
16 Q. And when did this 30-month program
17 begin which you are now in the midst of?
18 A. In June of last year.
19 Q. So the idea is that those three
20 students who have been in the program less than
21 one year now will complete 30 months of study.
22 A. Eventually. My contract has just
23 been extended for another year. We will be
24 finishing the handwriting block of the
25 instruction next month, and at that time they
0029
1 will move on to other areas of document
2 examination.
3 Q. And are those three students being
4 paid as employees of the INS while they are
5 taking your training course?
6 A. They are. They are actually
7 employees. They were brought into the
8 laboratory as permanent employees and the
9 positions are the positions of trainee, and then
10 after they've completed their training they will
11 go into permanent positions as forensic document
12 examiners.
13 Q. And what credentials did they need
14 to have before they could get admission into
15 your training program, if you know?
16 A. I do know. All three of them have
17 master's degrees in forensic science from the
18 George Washington University of Forensic
19 Sciences.
20 Q. Did you select these people?
21 A. These three, I did not. I've been
22 training people, though, for a number of years,
23 and previous trainees I have selected, but these
24 three were selected by my predecessor.
25 Q. At the end of the 30-month course
0030
1 that you have described what will these three
2 individuals be qualified to do, in your
3 judgment, at least as you hope?
4 A. Well, hopefully, and so far we've
5 been very successful, is that they will be able
6 to assume a caseload of their own. The first
7 year or so afterwards their work will all be
8 check and countersigned by a more senior
9 examiner, but they will be in a position to
10 take cases to court, should testimony be
11 necessary, and they will conduct independent
12 examinations of handwriting, handprinting matters,
13 altered and counterfeit document cases, various
14 miscellaneous problems having to do with
15 documents.
16 Q. In your 30-month program how much
17 time is devoted to the study of graphology?
18 A. None -- well, let me say that I
19 spend time only to identify what graphology is
20 and that it is not a part of forensic document
21 examination, and that it is not something that
22 we consider in our work.
23 Q. What are the major books in the
24 literature which your training program asks these
25 students to read?
0031
1 A. Well, there's only really a handful.
2 There's Suspect Documents by Harrison, Questioned
3 Documents by Osborn, Problem of Proof by Osborn,
4 Scientific Examination of Documents by Hilton,
5 Forensic Document Examination by Huber and
6 Hedrick, Conway's book on disputed documents.
7 That pretty much is the majority of the accepted
8 texts.
9 MR. RAWLS: May we take a brief
10 recess at this time? Is that convenient?
11 MR. ALTMAN: Sure.
12 MR. RAWLS: We're off the record
13 at --
14 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: 10:13 a.m.
15 (Recess).
16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the
17 record at 10:26 a.m.
18 BY MR. RAWLS:
19 Q. Mr. Epstein, we have a book here
20 that I'll show you, let me put it in the way
21 of the camera for just a moment, and, for the
22 record, this book was spoken of by Ms. Cina
23 Wong earlier this week.
24 Do you understand that Ms. Wong is
25 your co-expert on handwriting in the case of
0032
1 Chris Wolf? Was that a smile captured just
2 then or an effort not to smile?
3 A. An effort not to smile. I don't
4 know what you mean by co- -- what was it you
5 said?
6 Q. My word was co-expert on handwriting
7 in the case of Chris Wolf.
8 A. I really don't know how to answer
9 that question, to tell you the truth, because I
10 was not aware until this morning on my way here
11 that she had, in fact, been deposed and that
12 she had, in fact, written another report.
13 MR. HOFFMAN: Jim, can I interject
14 here, because this is a thing that involves
15 counsel and you can put this on the record or
16 keep it off, whichever you like.
17 MR. RAWLS: Well, Darnay, first I'd
18 like for Mr. Epstein to finish his answer. I
19 didn't think he was finished, but he might have
20 been.
21 MR. HOFFMAN: I'm very sorry.
22 Q. Mr. Epstein.
23 A. I don't consider her as my co-expert
24 in this case.
25 Q. Why is that?
0033
1 A. Someone else may consider her as a
2 co-expert in this case, but I don't.
3 Q. Why?
4 A. Because I don't believe that she
5 meets what I and the profession consider to be
6 the necessary qualifications for forensic
7 document examination.
8 &