Experts differ on hieroglyphics of Proinsias's `Moscow letter' signature

THE case so far has been dominated by the so-called "Moscow Letter". But on the fourth day of Proinsias De Rossa's libel action against the Sunday Independent, there were no fewer than six letters being debated, namely P, D, E, two Ss and an A.

These were tell-tale signs, a handwriting expert told the court, that Mr De Rossa did not sign a letter seeking funds from the old Soviet government and referring to "special activities" which had raised funds in the past.

Mr Michael Ansell, a retired document specialist with the London Metropolitan Police, was the key witness on a day when Mr De Rossa's handwriting was analysed with an intensity normally reserved for the text of Anglo-Irish communique's.

He had examined the original of the letter in the state archives in Moscow, he said, and comparing the contested signature with more than 200 examples supplied by Mr De Rossa had found at least five significant differences.

Firstly, the `P' was different in shape in the contested version. A capital `D' was used, whereas an old-Irish-style `d' was usual. The tail of the `e' went upwards in the Moscow letter, again unusual. The two `Ss' appeared disconnected, as if from hesitation. Finally, the `a' was closed rather than, as normal open.

The differences were outside a reasonable range of variation and suggested that "on balance" it was not Mr De Rossa's signature. Mr Jim Nash, an expert who reached the opposite conclusion for The Irish Times, was wrong, Mr Ansell added.

After an adjournment to allow the defence to consider the signature evidence (the witness had had to testify earlier than planned because of a travel commitment), the case resumed with his cross-examination by Mr Patrick MacEntee.

This began quietly, with the softspoken ex-policeman being put through his paces like a Mastermind contestant on his chosen specialised subject: Where did you go to in Moscow? The Archives of Modern Documentation. Who did you meet there? Mikhail Prozimensikov.

But as defence counsel warmed to the subject, the witness was soon having a torrid time. He conceded he had never sought to examine the type of paper used for letters from Workers' Party headquarters. Nor had he checked the date or heading on the original letter in the Moscow archive.

He accepted that a number of examples chosen by Mr MacEntee showed he had been wrong to suggest the P and r in Proinsias never intersected. He agreed that in copies of the Moscow letter furnished by the defence, there was no discontinuity between the `Ss' in De Rossa. He admitted that hi was a bad copy and that he should have looked for a better one.

By now Mr MacEntee, like the `e' in the contested signature, had his tail up. He was "flabbergasted" at what he was hearing from a senior document expert and accused him of offering a "thoroughly bad and misleading" copy of the letter to the court.

"I take it you know what your obligation is. It's to tell the truth, warts and all, regardless of how inconvenient it might be?" Mr Ansell, testifying with his arm in a sling answered quietly: "Yes."

Mr De Rossa, whose cross-examination will resume when Mr Ansell's ends this morning, had earlier been questioned about the Workers' Party efforts to establish relations with communist parties abroad. It was Rot only communist parties, he replied: they had approached a broad range of parties, "even the Tories in Britain.

"Was that serious?" defence counsel wanted to know, citing the word "Comrade" which featured in most greetings in the party's letters. "Well, I could address you as comrade," Mr De Rossa replied, - "but you mightn't be very happy about it, Mr MacEntee."