Yard Tells of a “Detective” Ray

Taranaki Central Press, Volume IV, Issue 372, 1 March 1937, Page 8

Yard Tells of a “Detective” Ray

ULTRA-VIOLET CLUE IN FRAUD CHARGE

Further details of the Scotland Yard ultra-violet ray method of detecting forgeries and alterations to documents were given when the directories frauds case was resumed at the Old Bailey.

Forgery in one document, an expert declared, had been detected by the absence of two full-stops in a signature. The hearing had been adjourned.

The accused were: John E. Wright, Harrow; Ernest R. Bird, Southsea; and Win. C. Patridge, Greenford Green (M iddlfcsex ).

Lt was alleged that money was collected on orders which had been cancalle'd, and that the word “Cancelled” had been erased.

There were 16 counts in an indictment against the men, alleging con* spiraey and false pretences to defraud people who might be induced to part with money to Bird and other agents of the Provincial Trades Directory on orders for advertisements, which the men purported to have been signed.

Detective-Constable George Salter explained that he had photographed many af the documents exhibited, first by the ordinary process and then by ultraviolet light.

They had a lamp at Scotland Yard which emitted all ultra-violet rays. They worked in complete darkness, and any erasion that might have been made —any word taken out by chemical pro--cess or otherwise —was revealed. Mr Christmas Humphreys (prosecuting) handed the C.I.D. man twtf bundles of counterfoils. Of these, ho’ laid, 27 related to the Commercial Directory and 13 to. the Provincial Trades Directory.

‘ * All these have been examined under ultra-violet light,” the detective said. ‘ ‘ In every case either the word * cancelled’ had been erased, or some other words tnat had been written over theft word ‘insert’ had Deen removed.”

Mr Humphreys took two further exhibits in the case and asked th& Scotland Yard man if he had imposed film positives of these. Salter: Yes, and one signature has been traced from the other with the exception of two full stops. Bird, asked if he wished to question the witness, replied: ‘‘He is a technical witness and 1 am not expert enough to deal with him.”

The Common Serjeant (Mr Cecil Whitely, K.C.): But he has given some very damaging evidence against you. He is saying that the signatures on these documents are forgeries. f Bird: Undoubtedly, my Lord. 1 agree that they are.

Edwin Bayliss, of Wilton road, Copnor, Portsmouth, said m the witness box that when engaged by Bird for 50 per cent, commission of what he collected, Bird told him it was a “sheer game of bluff.”

Lu answer to the Common Serjeant, who if the word “bluff” did not indicate something dishonest to him, Bayliss replied: “No, sir, it did not. Every business is more or less bluff.” Mr D. W. Al organs, of the compilation staff of Kelly’s Directories, said he had examined the 1935-36 edition of the Commercial Directory with the Commercial Directory of 1930-31. With the exception of the title page and some advertisements which had been pasted in the two books were identical. The directory had nd commercial value. He had compared the first 100 names in the London section of the Commercial Directory against Kelly’s Directory for 1936. and in 49 per cent, of the cases the entries were inaccurate.