The Forensic Testimonials

Every forensic expert who examined the stamps and every piece of scientific equipment used has, without exception, unanimously and unequivocally confirmed that the three stamps have not been faked.

 

The following scientific experts examined the three stamps on the cover:

1-  Professor Allan Jamieson: Director of the Forensic Institute, Glasgow

2- Robert Radley MSc, C Chem, FRSC, FCSFS, FSSoc Dip, FAE, RFP., The Radley Forensic Document Laboratory

3- Professor Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Analytical Chemist: ICPMS, FT-IR, Raman, and XRF Laboratory Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Rutgers University

4- Tom Ray: Microscopy Laboratory Manager, The Reading Scientific Services Laboratories (RSSL)

5- Dr. Hans Hagemann: University of Geneva

6- The Microscopy and Analysis Suite; University of Bath

7- Department of Chemistry, University College London

 

and below is a selection of testimonials which unanimously confirm that the stamps have not been tampered with:

 

 

Robert Radley MSc, C Chem, FRSC, FCSFS, FSSoc Dip, FAE, RFP., The Radley Forensic Document Laboratory

Examined the stamps using UV, IR and a VSC6000

Radley 1

Radley 2

Tom Ray: Microscopy Laboratory Manager, The Reading Scientific Services Laboratories (RSSL)

Examined the stamps using:

1‐Scanning electron microscopy in both topographic and back scattered modes

2‐EDXRF

3‐Profilometry/topography

4‐Confocal microscopy

RSSL report

Professor Allan Jamieson: Director of the Forensic Institute, Glasgow

Report on the data provided by the forensic scientists:

file-page1

 

file-page2

 

 

Professor Gene S. Hall, Ph.D., Analytical Chemist: ICPMS, FT-IR, Raman, and XRF Laboratory Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Rutgers University

Examined the stamps using Raman spectroscopy and EDXRF

The following extracts have been taken from professor Hall’s lengthy report dated 27th April 2014.

 

“I am writing this note to you so that there is no misunderstanding in regards to my non-destructive elemental and chemical analyses of the stamps in question.”

 

 “I have examined the stamps using non-destructive micro energy dispersive X-ray Fluorescence  (µEDXRF) to map the elemental distribution around the two “7”. The elemental analyses revealed the trace elements Cr (chromium), Ba (barium), and Pb (lead). Then, I used Raman spectroscopy to analyze the same areas that I used for EDXRF to determine the chemical composition of the inks.  Raman and EDXRF are complimentary techniques and these findings should be given consideration with their IR and UV light observations. These light observations do not provide elemental information which is the key to solving the problem of authenticity of your stamps. Having the elemental and chemical compound identification puts a chemical fingerprint on the stamps that can be used to rule out the idea that the number “3” was changed to the number “7”. Furthermore, using Raman I have found that the ink that printed the right hand “7” is identical to the ink that printed the whole stamp, namely HgS (mercury sulphide) (cinnabar/vermilion) and PbO2 (lead oxide, red lead). The trace PbCrO4 (lead chromate) content that appears as yellow-orange spots around the suspect “7” is not homogenous and it does not form an offending ink. It appears that these impurities could have come from hardened steel in the form of elemental Cr and PbCrO4.” 

 

“Raman is very sensitive to fluorescent pigments and none were detected in the area of the suspect “7”. “

 

“I can conclude based on validated accepted analytical testing methods of micro Raman and micro EDXRF that the “3” was not changed to the number “7” on your stamps. In addition, there is no appearance of the paper fiber being disturbed if the number “3” had been changed to the number “7”. “