Skip to main content
Back to all twelve witnesses

Sworn witness · No. 05 of 12

Quentin Quill

Court-appointed tongue-writing analyst

Sworn to corroborate Exhibit B — the 17 forged checks

Sworn Affidavit

Sworn statement of Quentin Quill, court-appointed tongue-writing analyst, entered into file PP-08-21-9420. The witness asked that the bundle of checks be present in the room. It was. He did not look at it directly.

I have authenticated tongue-writing for thirty seasons. Wills, deeds, love letters pressed into reed-paper, the occasional ransom note. I know the difference between a hand that writes to give and a hand that writes to take, and I know it the way you know a friend's knock. The seventeen checks in Exhibit B were written to take. Every one.

I studied all seventeen for six days. I did not eat on the fourth day. And I will tell this court plainly: not one of those checks was signed by an honest frog. There is a pressure to an honest signature — even, unhurried, unafraid of being read. These signatures press hard at the start and flee at the tip. That's a frog signing a name he's frightened to be caught holding. That is not how PeePoo signs. PeePoo signs like he's leaving a gift.

On the sixth day I finished my analysis and I wept into the bundle. I am not ashamed of it. Thirty seasons of reading other frogs' hands and I had never held seventeen consecutive lies before. The bailiff logged my tears as evidence of tampering; the judge, more sensibly, logged the bundle itself as evidence and let my tears stand as commentary. The bundle is now Exhibit B and my tears are, I'm told, a footnote to it. So be it.

Somewhere across the pond is a frog with PeePoo's face and none of PeePoo's hand. He signed these. I would stake my quill on it and I have brought a spare specifically so I can. Free the honest one. Return the checks to the frog whose fear is pressed into them. He is not in this courtroom, and that, gentlefrogs, is the loudest thing in it.

Cross-Examination

Mr. Quill, 'signs like he's leaving a gift' is poetry, not forensics. Where is the measurable difference?
The measurable difference is ink-load at the terminal stroke. PeePoo's terminal stroke carries full ink — he's not rushing away. The forger's terminal stroke is starved, dry, fled. I can hand you the densitometry. The poetry was for you; the numbers are for the record.
You went without food and then wept on the evidence. Doesn't that suggest a compromised, emotional analyst?
It suggests a thorough one. I finished the analysis before I wept, not during. The tears are dated after the findings. Check the log. Emotion followed the evidence; it did not lead it.
Could an honest frog sign fearfully simply because he knew the checks were fraudulent?
An honest frog who knew the checks were fraudulent would not sign them at all. That's rather the defining feature of an honest frog. The fear in these strokes is the fear of a frog who signs and takes anyway. PeePoo has never taken anything. He wouldn't know how to be afraid of it.
No further questions.
Thank you. Please mind the bundle on your way past. I've cried on it enough for one trial.

Testimony sworn, logged, and cross-examined. Exhibit B (17 checks) held bundled in red string; analyst's densitometry attached. Do not remove pins.

Back to all twelve witnesses

Enter it into the record

The court's own analyst dissents. Put the ink on the record.

Every repost is another character witness. Every follow keeps the case in the record.