Viewing page 30 of 49

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

17

the canvas and pigment were about fifty years old and (?) that [[strikethrough]] (?) [[/strikethrough]] it would not make sense deliuctly to forge a painting at a time an artist when there was no for [[strikethrough]] was not in demand. [[/strikethrough]] But Mr. Geyer based his conclusions primarily on the evidence of handwriting experts. 

The jury had claimed that "experts in this field did not consider that the samples available in the painting were sufficient to support an opinion" and it was reported in THE NEW YORK TIMes that Capt. Edward Fagen of the New York City police laboratory reported that for the first time in its history it had been called upon in such a case. The fact that the signature was painted rather than 'handwritten' prevented the department from coming to a conclusion about its authenticity." But Mr. Geyer conscientiously consulted the Treasury Department's most trusted experts [[strikethrough]] and [[/strikethrough]] who (?) these men came up with a report that the writing on the Goetz picture was similiar to that on other Van Gigh paintings and was not forged. Moreover, Japanese and Chinese experts maintained the errors in the Oriental characters were identical with errors in other Oriental characters made by Van Gogh. 

Mr. Goetz now has in his possession a [[strikethrough]] laughter [[/strikethrough]] letter signed by John S. Graham, then Assostant Secretary of the Treasury which says, "The investigation considered every [[strikethrough]] factor [[/strikethrough]] facet of this case and established that, in so far as concerns the Bureau of Customs, the painting was authentic." Uncle Sam's authentication not only silences any one who might still entertain doubts, unless he wishes to face