Background and Death of Edwin A. Oliver:

Edwin A. Oliver, a renowned editor at Yonkers Statesman and a popular humourist on the local scene, died on April 22, 1925, in White Plains, New York. At the time of his death, his assets are estimated at around $62,000, a substantial amount at that time, which was expected to spark a bitter legal battle among possible heirs and successors. Oliver had drafted a series of wills over the course of a single year before his death, thus creating a classic scenario for dispute in inheritance that would make headline news in the media and feature early methods of forensic analysis of some suspect documents.

The Two Contending Wills and the First Objection: Two major wills were invoked during the probate case. The first, dated June 30, 1924, looked out for favor for certain relatives, including the nephew who later headed the dispute. The other will was dated September 20, 1924. This later will was supposed to have cancelled out the previous one, wiling benefits to certain individuals, including witness Nellie Drummond (who might have been a housekeeper or associate) and William Weeks. The nephew called this later will into question on grounds that it had been forged, especially the alterations on the paper itself that indicated the printer's name and address and the date of printing at the top of the form. This date had actually been torn off.

Key Evidence:

The Pre-Printed Legal Forms: The contested will was drafted on a preprinted form for legal documents prepared by a local printer in two separate print runs that were significant to the timeline. While the first print run occurred on January 8, 1924, the document would indeed exist and become available long before the supposed September date. A later print run occurred on October 8, 1924, which followed the supposed date of the will’s execution. For the September 20, 1924, will to be genuine, it had to use the January form because the October version did not exist at that stage. This timeline issue became the crucial lead in the forgery claim, as the use of the October form would establish the last will as a retroactive and post-mortem forgery.

Further Investigation

A)    Forensic Analysis of the Torn Piece of Paper: Some Thoughts on QDE Analysis

Questioned document examiners, representing unwavering diligence, analyzed the torn part of the paper that contained the erased date using microscopic techniques related to the torn part where the date was erased. Notwithstanding these erasures, a minute but invaluable piece was retained, denominated "the tail of the comma," coming from "the Printer's address line, presumably printing something like 'Printer's Street, City, NY.'" The precise placement of this piece of ink on the paper was meticulously measured compared to genuine specimens of January and October paperwork.

​The Decisive Mismatch Revelation: The placement of the comma tail failed to correspond with the positioning on the January 8, 1924, copy. On the other hand, it exactly matched the positioning on the October 8, 1924, copy. This conclusive impossibility revealed that the document could not have existed on the dates of September 20, 1924, making the will a forgery by employing a document that did not exist during the alleged dates, making the will a forgery. This analysis pointed to the fact that the minutest detail in printing could lead to a conclusive find in forensic analysis.

Conviction and Outcome

The Grand Jury Indictments 

Based on the forensic discoveries that took place early in 1926, a Westchester County Grand Jury began an investigation. They inducted major wrongdoers, key witnesses Nellie Drummond and William Weeks, who had testified about the second will, on charges of forgery in the first degree and perjury.

These charges came about because they had signed documents that they understood to be or should have understood that a document was false. Court Decision and Will Invalidated: Already by the middle of 1926, the court has been unequivocal in siding with the contesters and invalidating the whole will dated September 1924 on the basis of unimpeachable forensic evidence. The will dated June 30, 1924, was deemed valid. Hence, this settled the dispute on probate. Aftermath and Legacy: The case remained in the realm of the legal system well into 1928 with the appearance of parole applications for those who were thought to be involved, including the mention of a "Cowles" who may have had peripheral involvement. The Oliver Will case is one that has left its mark in the field of forensic science as it demonstrates the importance of document analysis.

Ms. Ovee Salagare

Academic Department Member

Applied Forensic Research Sciences.