Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 472

DECLARATION signed by Alexander H. Southwell re 318 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. filed by Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit D to Lesnevich Supplemental Report (Exhibit A), # 3 Exhibit E to Lesnevich Supplemental Report (Exhibit A))(Snyder, Orin)

EXHIBIT A

August 8, 2012
Re:

Paul D. Ceglia v Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00569-RJA
Supplemental Expert Report of Gus R. Lesnevich, Forensic Document Examiner

My name is Gus R. Lesnevich and I am a Forensic Document Examiner. I incorporate into this
supplemental Expert Report the entirety of my initial Expert Report, filed March 26, 2012 (Doc. No.
329), including all appendices and exhibits. My curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit A to my
initial Expert Report.
I.

PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION

In my initial Expert Report, I described my examination of four images of the purported contract
upon which Plaintiff Paul Ceglia has based this lawsuit, the “WORK FOR HIRE” CONTRACT
(hereafter, Work for Hire document). Ceglia has proffered all four images of the Work for Hire
document (collectively, the Questioned Documents) as images of the same physical document.
However, in my initial Expert Report, I observed that there are at least 20 significant dissimilarities
between the handwritten interlineations on page 1 of the Questioned Documents, again, all of which
Ceglia has proffered as images of the same physical document. Thus, I concluded, to the highest
degree of certainty possible, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Ceglia has proffered at least two
different physical documents as the Work for Hire document. In the course of conducting this
analysis, I also observed several handwriting anomalies on both pages 1 and 2 of the Work for Hire
document.
On June 4, 2012, Ceglia filed, among other reports, the expert reports of James A. Blanco and Larry
F. Stewart (Doc. Nos. 415, 416), both of which mischaracterized the conclusions I reached in my
initial Expert Report. In particular, Messrs. Blanco and Stewart mistakenly argued that I had
concluded that the first page of the Work for Hire Document was a forgery appended to a genuine
second page.
Continuing my court-ordered examination and in response to the reports of Ceglia’s experts, I
conducted two different modes of supplemental analysis. First, I was asked to determine whether
−1−

the images of the handwritten signatures and dates of signature on page 2 of the Questioned
Documents are, in fact, of the same physical document. The questioned written signatures and dates
are “Paul Ceglia 4/28/03” and “Mark Zuckerberg 04.28.03.” This is the same type of analysis that I
described in my initial Expert Report, which I now perform on the handwritten features that appear
on page 2 of the Questioned Documents rather than page 1 (the page containing all references to the
purported “The Face Book”).
Second, I continued my ongoing analysis and examination of the handwriting on both page 1 and 2
of the Work for Hire document. In particular, I was asked to determine whether the questioned
initials “MZ” on page 1 and signatures and dates on page 2 of the Work for Hire document presented
for inspection in 2011 are genuine. To perform this type of analysis, I compared the questioned
handwritten entries to 43 known signatures, 12 known sets of initials, and multiple other known
handwritten exemplars of Mark Zuckerberg and 11 known signatures of Paul Ceglia. This is a
different type of analysis than that described in my initial Expert Report, and responds, in part, to the
reports of Ceglia’s experts.
II.

THE QUESTIONED DOCUMENTS

The Questioned Documents I examined are the same Questioned Documents described in my initial
Expert Report. For ease of reference, they are:
Exhibit Q-1: Image of the Work for Hire document in TIF file format sent by Ceglia to his
attorney Paul Argentieri on June 27, 2010.
Exhibit Q-2: Image of the Work for Hire document attached to Ceglia’s Amended Complaint,
filed April 11, 2011.
Exhibit Q-3: Image of the Work for Hire document taken by Ceglia’s expert Valery Aginsky
during his January 13, 2011 examination of the Work for Hire Contract.
Exhibit Q-4: Image of the Work for Hire document taken by Defendants’ expert Peter V. Tytell
during Defendants’ July 14, 2011 examination of the Work for Hire document
presented by Ceglia’s counsel Paul Argentieri.
Again, Ceglia has proffered all four images as images of the same two-page physical document, the
Work for Hire document. Images of page 2 of the Questioned Documents are attached hereto as
Exhibit D.
III.

THE KNOWN DOCUMENTS

I compared the Questioned Documents to 43 known signatures, 12 known sets of initials, and
multiple other known handwritten exemplars of Mark Zuckerberg and 11 known signatures of
Paul Ceglia (collectively, the Known Documents). This compilation included all known
−2−

exemplars provided to me. These exemplars were provided (1) during my July 15, 2011
examination of the original documents made available to me in Buffalo, New York and (2)
following discovery received from Ceglia and his experts during the litigation. I understand that
all of the Known Documents were made available to both parties’ experts. Images of the Known
Documents are attached hereto as Exhibit E.
Exhibit K-1: Images of Exhibits 16, 19, 21 to the Declaration of James A. Blanco, dated June 4,
REDACTED
2012 (Doc. No. 415-2), which include
REDACTED
Some of these documents are
confidential and subject to the protective order in this matter (Doc. No. 86).
Exhibit K-2: Images of a May 12, 2005 and an August 8, 2005 Form D filing with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on behalf of TheFacebook, Inc., bearing three signatures
of Mark Zuckerberg. These documents were produced to Defendants by Ceglia
through a subpoena directed to John Paul Osborn, one of Ceglia’s experts in forensic
document examination, on November 15, 2011.
Exhibit K-3: Original “StreetFax Back-End Technical Specification Document” (hereafter, the
Specifications document), dated April 28, 2003, bearing the following ink
handwriting:
•
•
•
•
•

1 set of initials of Mark Zuckerberg on page 4
1 signature of Paul Ceglia on page 6
1 date, “4/28/03,” adjacent to signature of Paul Ceglia on page 6
1 signature of Mark Zuckerberg on page 6
1 date, “04.28.03,” adjacent to signature of Mark Zuckerberg on page 6

I examined the original Specifications document.
REDACTED
REDACTED
A copy of this
document was included as part of Exhibits 16 and 21 to the Declaration of James A.
REDACTED
Blanco (Doc. No. 415-2). I examined the original
document. This document is confidential and subject to the protective order in this
matter (Doc. No. 86).

Exhibit K-4: Original

Exhibit K-5: Original

REDACTED

REDACTED

. A copy of this document was included as part of Exhibit 16 to the
Declaration of James A. Blanco (Doc. No. 415-2). I examined the original REDACTED
document. This document is confidential and subject to the protective order in this
matter (Doc. No. 86).
−3−

Exhibit K-6: Original

REDACTED
REDACTED

. A copy of this document was included as part of
Exhibit 16 to the Declaration of James A. Blanco (Doc. No. 415-2). I examined the
REDACTED
original
document. This document is confidential and subject to the protective
order in this matter (Doc. No. 86).
Exhibit K-7: Images of Declarations of Paul Ceglia provided to Defendants (on December 2, 2011
and December 23, 2011) or filed (Doc. Nos. 65, 225, 230, 339, 344, 398, 422) in this
case bearing ten signatures of Paul Ceglia.

−4−

IV.
A.

METHODOLOGY OF EXAMINATION

Comparison of Handwritten Entries on Page 2 of the Questioned Documents

To analyze and compare the questioned signatures and dates on page 2 of the Questioned Documents,
I performed a series of visual examinations using the procedures prescribed by ASTM International.
These visual examinations included: (1) use of a hand-held glass possessing 3x magnification
capabilities; (2) enlargement of the images of the handwritten text on page 2 on high-resolution
computer screens using Mac Preview; (3) use of a hand-held glass to examine the enlarged images—
an analytical method that provides the ability to examine the handwriting closely, without distorting
the image; and (4) side-by-side comparison of the handwritten entries. Each of these methods is nondestructive and conforms with the ASTM International Standards as the most appropriate method for
conducting this examination. See ASTM International Standards E 2331-04, 2290-07a.
To determine whether any dissimilarities exist among the questioned signatures and dates on page 2 of
the Questioned Documents, and in accordance with the standards set out by ASTM International, some
of the points I considered were: letter formation and the overall design of the letters and numerals
(paying particularly close attention to loops and curves); direction of strokes; beginning and ending
strokes (i.e., the curvature and style of the beginning and ending strokes of each of the letters or
numerals); letter spacing or placement on the document; the height-relationship of letters and numerals
within each word or number; spacing; slant/slope of words, letters, and numerals; cross strokes; and
embellishments. See ASTM International Standard E 2290-07a.
B.

Comparison of Questioned Handwritten Entries to Work for Hire Document and Known
Zuckerberg and Ceglia Handwriting Exemplars

To determine the genuineness of the handwritten Zuckerberg and Ceglia signatures, dates, and “MZ”
initials on the Work for Hire document presented for inspection in 2011 (Exhibit Q-3), I performed the
visual examinations described above using the procedures prescribed by ASTM International. In
addition, I compared the handwritten questioned entries with corresponding known signatures, dates,
and initials of Mark Zuckerberg and Paul Ceglia. Each of these methods is non-destructive and
conforms with the ASTM International Standards as the most appropriate method for conducting this
examination. See ASTM International Standards E 2331-04, 2290-07a.
To determine the genuineness of the handwritten Zuckerberg and Ceglia signatures and dates and the
handwritten “MZ” initials on Exhibit Q-3, in accordance with the standards set out by ASTM
International, some of the points I considered were: pen pressure; line quality; continuous writing
movement; hesitation; letter formation and design; slant/slope dissimilarities; beginning/ending
strokes; retouching; and blunt and tapered endings. See ASTM International Standard E 2290-07a.

−5−

V.
A.

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION

Twelve (12) Differences Between and Among the Handwritten Entries on Page 2 of
the Questioned Documents

As discussed above, in my initial Expert Report, I concluded that Ceglia has proffered at least two
different physical documents as the same Work for Hire document. That initial phase of analysis
considered the handwritten features that appear on page 1 of the Questioned Documents, which are
four images that Ceglia has presented as images of the same Work for Hire document. This
supplemental Expert Report describes my findings resulting from the same type of analysis on the
handwritten features (signatures and dates) that appear on page 2 of the Questioned Documents.
In sum, I observed at least 12 significant dissimilarities among and between the handwritten
signatures and dates on page 2 of the Questioned Documents. These dissimilarities are not
attributable to image-quality variations between documents. Rather, the differences between the
handwriting on the Questioned Documents were generated at the time of the documents’ creation, and
not at the time of reproduction.
These dissimilarities confirm, to the highest degree of certainty possible, my earlier conclusion that
the Questioned Documents are images of at least two different physical documents. See ASTM
International standard E 1658-08. Ceglia has therefore produced at least two different physical
documents purporting to be the same document. In particular, Ceglia produced a Work for Hire
document to Defendants’ experts in July 2011 that was different than the document he attached to his
Amended Complaint.
The 12 handwriting dissimilarities found in my examination of the purported signatures and
handwritten dates of signature on page 2 of the Work for Hire document are reflected in the images of
the Questioned Documents in this supplemental Expert Report. In addition, images of the second
page of each of the Questioned Documents with enlarged pull-outs of the questioned signatures and
dates are attached hereto as Exhibit D.
1.

Beginning/Ending Stroke Dissimilarities

I observed several beginning/ending stroke dissimilarities regarding the questioned Ceglia signature
and the questioned Zuckerberg date of signature appearing on page 2 of the Questioned Documents.
a)
I examined the handwritten name “Paul” in the questioned signature of “Paul Ceglia”
1
I compared the characteristics of the handwritten text appearing on page 2 of all four
Questioned Documents. However, in some instances, I have restricted my analysis to fewer than
all four Questioned Documents due to varying reproduction quality and in accordance with my
extensive professional experience and judgment following the ASTM Standards. See ASTM
Standard E2209-07.
−6−

on page 2 and found that the ending stroke of the letter “l” ends below the printed
signature line below on Exhibit Q-1. However, on Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4, the ending
stroke of the letter “l” ends at, or on, the printed signature line below. See Figs. 21,
22.
b)

I examined the handwritten number “04” in the questioned date of signature by Mark
Zuckerberg on page 2 and found that the beginning stroke of the first numeral “0”
points up on Exhibit Q-1. However, on Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4, the beginning stroke of
the first numeral “0” points down. See Figs. 23, 24.

c)

I examined the handwritten name “Paul” in the questioned signature of “Paul Ceglia”
on page 2 and found that the initial writing movement (i.e., the beginning stroke) of
the letter “P” is high on Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2. However, on Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4,
the initial writing movement (i.e., the beginning stroke) of the letter “P” is lower. See
Figs. 25, 26.

−7−

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-1

ending stroke

Breaks the line

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-3

ending stroke

stops on the line

Fig. 21.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-2

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-4

ending stroke

stops on the line

Fig. 22.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-1

initial stroke
points up

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-3

initial stroke
points down

Fig. 23.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-2

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-4

initial stroke
points down

Fig. 24.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-1

Begining stroke
is high

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-3

Begining stroke
is low

Fig. 25.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-2

Begining stroke
is high

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-4

Begining stroke
is low

Fig. 26.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

2.

Letter Formation or Design of Letters

I observed several letter formation or letter design dissimilarities regarding the questioned Ceglia date
of signature, as well as the questioned Zuckerberg signature and date of signature, appearing on page
2 of the Questioned Documents.
a)

I examined the handwritten number “4” in the questioned Ceglia date of signature and
found that the first stroke connects with the staff on Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2. However,
on Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4, the first stroke is separated from the staff. See Figs. 27, 28.

b)

I examined the handwritten number “28” in the questioned Ceglia date of signature
and found that the top half of the numeral “8” is closed on Exhibit Q-1. However, on
Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4, the top half of the numeral “8” is open. See Figs. 29, 30.

c)

I examined the handwritten number “03” in the questioned Ceglia date of signature
and found that the space between the initial stroke of the numeral “3” and the first
downward stroke is small or closed on Exhibit Q-1. However, on Exhibits Q-3 and
Q-4, the space between the initial stroke of the numeral “3” and the first downward
stroke is larger or open. See Figs. 31, 32.

d)

I examined the handwritten number “03” in the questioned Ceglia date of signature
and found that there is a small or no opening between the ending stroke of the
numeral “3” and the printed signature line on Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2. However, on
Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4, there is a larger opening between the ending stroke of the
numeral “3” and the printed signature line. See Figs. 33, 34.

e)

I examined the handwritten name “Zuckerberg” in the questioned Zuckerberg
signature and found that the ending stroke of the letter “b” leaves a large opening on
Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2. However, on Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4, the ending stroke of the
letter “b” leaves a smaller opening. See Figs. 35, 36.

f)

I examined the handwritten name “Mark” in the questioned Zuckerberg signature and
found that the downward stroke of the letter “r” touches, but does not retrace, the left
staff before changing direction on Exhibit Q-1. However, on Exhibit Q-3, the
downward stroke of the letter “r” not only touches the left staff, but retraces the staff
before changing direction. See Fig. 37.

g)

I examined the handwritten number “28” in the questioned Zuckerberg date of
signature on page 2 and found that the upstroke of the numeral “8” is formed with a
continuous writing movement, forming a rounded bottom, on Exhibit Q-1. However,
on Exhibit Q-3, the upstroke of the numeral “8” is formed with a sharp change in
direction, forming an angled bottom. See Fig. 38.

−8−

h)

I examined the handwritten number “03” in the questioned Zuckerberg date of
signature and found that the bottom half of the numeral “3” is formed with a straight
downward stroke on Exhibit Q-1. However, on Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4, the bottom half
of the numeral “3” is formed in an angular fashion, creating a more acute curve. See
Figs. 39, 40.

−9−

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-1

ConneCted

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-3

separated

Fig. 27.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-2

ConneCted

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-4

separated

Fig. 28.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-1

Closed

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-3

open

Fig. 29.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-2

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-4

open

Fig. 30.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-1

small opening

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-3

larger

opening

Fig. 31.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-2

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-4

larger

opening

Fig. 32.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-1

small opening

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-3

Fig. 33.

larger

opening

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-2

small or no
opening

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” date “4/28/03”

exhiBit Q-4

Fig. 34.

larger

opening

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” signature

exhiBit Q-1

large
opening

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” signature

exhiBit Q-3

Fig. 35.

smaller
opening

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument

Questioned “mark ZuCkerBerg” signature

exhiBit Q-2

large
opening

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” signature

exhiBit Q-4

Fig. 36.

smaller
opening

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” signature

exhiBit Q-1

does not retraCe

BeFore Changing direCtion

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” signature

exhiBit Q-3

touChes and retraCes

BeFore Changing direCtion

Fig. 37.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-1

Continuous

writing movement

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-3

sharp

Change in direCtion

Fig. 38.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-1
straight BaCk

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-3
angled BaCk

Fig. 39.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-2

“work For hire” doCument
“mark ZuCkerBerg” date “04.28.03”

exhiBit Q-4
angled BaCk

Fig. 40.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

3.

Letter Spacing or Placement on the Document

I observed one letter spacing or placement dissimilarity between the questioned Ceglia signature on
Exhibit Q-1 and Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4.
a)

I examined the handwritten name “Paul” in the questioned Ceglia signature and found
that the downstroke of the upper staff of the letter “l” on Exhibit Q-1 does not pass
through the open bowl of the typed letter “a” in the typed text bearing the name
“Ceglia” above. However, on Exhibits Q-3 and Q-4, the downstroke of the upper
staff of the letter “l” passes through the center of the bowl of the typed letter “a” in the
typed text bearing the name “Ceglia” above. See Figs. 41, 42.

−10−

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-1

“l” does not pass through the Center
“a”

oF the Bowl oF the printed letter

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-3

“l” passes through the Center oF
“a”

the Bowl oF the printed letter

Fig. 41.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-2

“work For hire” doCument
“paul Ceglia” signature

exhiBit Q-4

“l” passes through the Center oF
“a”

the Bowl oF the printed letter

Fig. 42.

(isolated images have Been enlarged For illustration purposes)

B.

Comparison of Questioned Writings to Known Zuckerberg Handwriting Exemplars
Confirms That Mark Zuckerberg Did Not Write The Questioned Zuckerberg Signature
and Date of Signature on Page 2 of the Work for Hire Document

To determine the genuineness of the questioned Zuckerberg signature and date of signature on the
Work for Hire document presented for inspection in January 2011 (Exhibit Q-3), I compared those
handwritings with the several known signatures, dates of signatures, and numbers on Exhibits K-3, K4, K-5, and K-6.1 In comparison with these knowns, I observed significant evidence of changes in
direction, hesitation, unnatural writing movement, poor line quality, angular writing movements,
differences in letter formation and design, and beginning stroke dissimilarities in the questioned
Zuckerberg signature and date of signature on Exhibit Q-3. Based upon my professional judgment
and expertise, the evidence—captured in the images of the Questioned and Known Documents
included in this supplemental Expert Report—reflects that the questioned Zuckerberg signature and
date of signature on Exhibit Q-3 were slowly drawn and not naturally written.
1.

Line Quality2 Dissimilarities

I observed several dissimilarities in line quality between the questioned Zuckerberg date on Exhibit
Q-3 and the known handwritten dates of signature of Mark Zuckerberg and numbers appearing on
Exhibits K-3 and K-4.
a)

I examined the numbers “04” and “03” on the questioned Zuckerberg date and found
that both numerals “0” were drawn in a shaky, slow manner with angular writing
movements, evidencing poor line quality and indicating traced writing. However, on
Exhibits K-3 and K-4, the numerals “0” were written in a smooth, rapid, and steady
fashion, creating a more circular or oblong “0” and indicating natural writing. See Fig
43.

1
I also compared the questioned Zuckerberg signature in Exhibit Q-3 with additional
known signatures of Mark Zuckerberg, identified as Exhibits K-1 and K-2. However, for
illustrative purposes, I have focused on a detailed analysis here of the known signatures of Mark
Zuckerberg contained in Exhibits K-3, K-4, K-5, and K-6 because these documents are originals.
I note that my analysis of the signatures in Exhibits K-1 and K-2 support the conclusions I have
reached in this supplemental Expert Report.
2
Line quality is an “important characteristic of handwriting. It is the combination of
writing speed, skill, freedom of movement, execution rhythm, and pen pressure.” Kelly, J.,
Lindblom, B., Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents, (2d ed. 2006). The analysis of
line quality contained in this supplemental Expert Report is based upon my more than 44 years of
experience as a forensic document examiner, examining signatures and writings. See also United
States v. Rutland, 372 F.3d 543, 544 (3d Cir. 2004) (commenting on Lesnevich’s “extensive
qualifications and impressive past experience” as a forensic document examiner).
−11−

b)

I examined the number “28” on the questioned Zuckerberg date and found that the
numeral “2” was drawn in a shaky, slow manner with angular writing movements,
evidencing poor line quality and indicating traced writing. However, on Exhibits K-3
and K-4, the numerals “2” were written in a smooth, rapid, and steady fashion,
creating a more curved top and indicating natural writing. See Fig. 44.

c)

I examined the number “03” on the questioned Zuckerberg date and found that the
numeral “3” was drawn in a shaky, slow manner with angular writing movements,
evidencing poor line quality and indicating traced writing. However, on Exhibits K-3
and K-4, the numerals “3” were written in a smooth, rapid, and steady fashion,
creating more curved bowls on both the top and the bottom of the numerals “3” and
indicating natural writing. See Fig. 45.

−12−

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” Date “04.28.03”

Poor liNe Quality

(iNDicative of traceD writiNg)

KNowN writiNgs of MarK ZucKerberg
K-3 (aPril 28, 2003)

K-3 (aPril 28, 2003)

K-4 (July 29, 2004)

K-4 (July 29, 2004)

suPerior liNe Quality

fig. 43.

(iNDicative of Natural writiNg)

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” Date “04.28.03”

Poor liNe Quality
(iNDicative of traceD writiNg)

KNowN writiNgs of MarK ZucKerberg
K-3 (aPril 28, 2003)

K-4 (July 29, 2004)

curveD

K-4 (July 29, 2004)
curveD
curveD

suPerior liNe Quality

fig. 44.

(iNDicative of Natural writiNg)

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” Date “04.28.03”

Poor liNe Quality

(iNDicative of traceD writiNg)

KNowN writiNgs of MarK ZucKerberg

K-3 (aPril 28, 2003)

K-4 (July 29, 2004)
curveD

curveD

K-4 (July 29, 2004)

curveD

K-4 (July 29, 2004)

suPerior liNe Quality

fig. 45.

(iNDicative of Natural writiNg)

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

curveD

2.

Letter Formation or Design of Letters

I observed several dissimilarities in letter formation or design of letters between the questioned
Zuckerberg signature and date on Exhibit Q-3 and the known signatures of Mark Zuckerberg on
Exhibits K-3, K-4, K-5, and K-6 and handwritten dates of signature of Mark Zuckerberg and numbers
appearing on Exhibits K-3 and K-4.
a)

I examined the questioned Zuckerberg signature on Exhibit Q-3 and found that the
elongated staff of the letter “b” in “Zuckerberg” is closed. However, on Exhibits K-3,
K-4, K-5, and K-6, the elongated staff of the letter “b” in “Zuckerberg” is open,
creating a loop. See Figs. 46–48.

b)

I examined the number “04” on the questioned Zuckerberg date on Exhibit Q-3 and
found that the beginning stroke of the first numeral “0” points down. However, on
Exhibits K-3 and K-4, the beginning stroke of the first numeral “0” is either
overwritten or points up. See Fig. 49.

−13−

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” sigNature
(PurPorteDly DateD aPril 28, 2003)

closeD

K-3

K-4(a)

fig. 46.

KNowN sigNatures of MarK ZucKerberg

aPril 28, 2003

July 29, 2004

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

oPeN

oPeN

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” sigNature
(PurPorteDly DateD aPril 28, 2003)

closeD

K-4(b)

K-5(a)

fig. 47.

KNowN sigNatures of MarK ZucKerberg

July 29, 2004

July 29, 2004

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

oPeN

oPeN

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” sigNature
(PurPorteDly DateD aPril 28, 2003)

closeD

K-5(b)

K-6

fig. 48.

KNowN sigNatures of MarK ZucKerberg

July 29, 2004

July 29, 2004

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

oPeN

oPeN

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” Date “04.28.03”

iNitial stroKe PoiNts DowN

KNowN writiNgs of MarK ZucKerberg
K-3 (aPril 28, 2003)

K-3 (aPril 28, 2003)

K-4 (July 29, 2004)

K-4 (July 29, 2004)

iNitial stroKe is overwritteN or PoiNts uP

fig. 49.

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

3.

Hesitation

I observed several instances of hesitation between the questioned Zuckerberg signature and date on
Exhibit Q-3 and the known Zuckerberg signatures on Exhibits K-3, K-4, K-5, and K-6 and
handwritten dates of signature of Mark Zuckerberg and numbers appearing on Exhibits K-3 and K-4.
a)

I examined the questioned Zuckerberg signature on Exhibit Q-3 and found that the
writer, before creating the first stroke for the letter “r” in “Mark,” stopped at the base
of the letter “M,” hesitated, and then continued on with the connecting stroke on the
letter “r,” indicating traced writing. However, on Exhibits K-3, K-4, K-5, and K-6,
Mr. Zuckerberg created the connecting stroke between the “M” and “r” in “Mark”
with a continuous and fluid writing movement, indicating natural writing. See Figs.
50–52.

b)

I examined the number “28” on the questioned Zuckerberg date of signature on
Exhibit Q-3 and found that the writer, before creating the upstroke for the numeral
“8,” hesitated, and then continued on with the upstroke, creating an angular bottom,
indicative of traced writing. However, on Exhibits K-3 and K-4, Mr. Zuckerberg
created the entire numeral “8” with a smooth, fluid writing movement, creating a
curved bottom, indicative of natural writing. See Fig. 53.

−14−

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” sigNature
(PurPorteDly DateD aPril 28, 2003)

hesitatioN

(iNDicative of traceD writiNg)

K-3

K-4(a)

fig. 50.

KNowN sigNatures of MarK ZucKerberg

aPril 28, 2003

No hesitatioN

No hesitatioN

July 29, 2004

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” sigNature
(PurPorteDly DateD aPril 28, 2003)

hesitatioN

(iNDicative of traceD writiNg)

K-4(b)

KNowN sigNatures of MarK ZucKerberg

July 29, 2004

No hesitatioN
July 29, 2004

K-5(a)

fig. 51.

No hesitatioN

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” sigNature
(PurPorteDly DateD aPril 28, 2003)

hesitatioN

(iNDicative of traceD writiNg)

K-5(b)

KNowN sigNatures of MarK ZucKerberg

July 29, 2004

No hesitatioN
July 29, 2004

K-7

fig. 52.

No hesitatioN

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” Date “04.28.03”

hesitatioN

(iNDicative of traceD writiNg)

KNowN writiNgs of MarK ZucKerberg

K-3 (aPril 28, 2003)

K-4 (July 29, 2004)

No hesitatioN

No hesitatioN

suPerior liNe Quality

fig. 53.

(iNDicative of Natural writiNg)

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

4.

Retouching Dissimilarities

I observed one instance of re-touching or correction in the questioned Zuckerberg signature on page 2
of Exhibit Q-3.
a)

I examined the questioned Zuckerberg signature on Exhibit Q-3 and found that the
writer, while creating the elongated staff of the letter “b” on the upstroke, retouched
the writing movement by either changing direction at the height of the staff and
retracing a portion of the staff while creating the downstroke, creating a “figure 8,” or
stopping at the height of the staff, lifting the pen, and retracing the upstroke while
creating the downstroke. This type of retouching or correction is indicative of traced
writing. See Fig. 54.

−15−

exhibit Q-3 “worK for hire” DocuMeNt
QuestioNeD “MarK ZucKerberg” sigNature
(PurPorteDly DateD aPril 28, 2003)

letter “b” was retoucheD
or correcteD

fig. 54.

(iNDicative of traceD writiNg)

(isolateD iMages have beeN eNlargeD for illustratioN PurPoses)

C.

Comparison of Questioned Writings to Known Zuckerberg Handwriting Exemplars
Confirms That Mark Zuckerberg Did Not Write The Questioned Zuckerberg Initials on
Page 1 of the Work for Hire Document

To determine the genuineness of the questioned Zuckerberg initials on the Work for Hire document
presented for inspection in January 2011 (Exhibit Q-3), I compared that writing with the several
known initials appearing on Exhibits K-1 and K-3. I observed significant evidence of unnaturally
blunt ending strokes, slant/slope dissimilarities, and vertical-alignment dissimilarities in the
questioned Zuckerberg initials on Exhibit Q-3. Based upon my professional judgment and expertise,
the evidence—captured in the images of the Questioned and Known Documents included in this
supplemental Expert Report—reflects that the questioned Zuckerberg initials on Exhibit Q-3 were
slowly drawn and not naturally written.
1.

Tapered and Blunt Ending Strokes

I observed multiple dissimilarities in ending strokes between the questioned “MZ” initials on Exhibit
Q-3 and the known “MZ” initials on Exhibit K-3.
a)

I examined the questioned “MZ” initials on Exhibit Q-3 and found that the ending
strokes of the “M” and “Z” in “MZ” ended abruptly, creating blunt ending strokes,
which are indicative of traced writing. However, on page 4 of Exhibit K-3, the ending
strokes of the “M” and “Z” in “MZ” end rapidly, creating tapered ending strokes,
which are indicative of natural writing. See Fig. 55.

−16−

ExhiBit Q-3 “worK for hirE” documEnt
QuEstionEd “mZ” initials
(purportEdly datEd april 28, 2003)

Blunt Endings

(indicativE of tracEd writing)

K-3

Known initials of marK ZucKErBErg

april 28, 2003

tapErEd Endings

fig. 55.

(indicativE of natural writing)

(isolatEd imagEs havE BEEn EnlargEd for illustration purposEs)

2.

Slant/Slope Dissimilarities

I observed one slant/slope dissimilarity between the questioned “MZ” initials on Exhibit Q-3 and the
known “MZ” initials on Exhibits K-1 and K-3.
a)

I examined the questioned “MZ” initials on page 1 of Exhibit Q-3 and found that the
crossbar of the letter “Z” slants sharply downward from left to right. However, on
page 4 of Exhibit K-3 and on each set of known “MZ” initials contained in Exhibit K1, the crossbar of the letter “Z” either slants upward from left to right or is
approximately horizontal. See Figs. 56–58.

−17−

ExhiBit Q-3 “worK for hirE” documEnt
QuEstionEd “mZ” initials
(purportEdly datEd april 28, 2003)

dissimilar crossBar slant

K-3

K-1(2)

fig. 56.

Known initials of marK ZucKErBErg
april 28, 2003

K-1(1)

august 6, 2004

K-1(3)

august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

(isolatEd imagEs havE BEEn EnlargEd for illustration purposEs)

ExhiBit Q-3 “worK for hirE” documEnt
QuEstionEd “mZ” initials
(purportEdly datEd april 28, 2003)

dissimilar crossBar slant

K-1(4)

K-1(6)

fig. 57.

Known initials of marK ZucKErBErg
august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

K-1(5)

K-1(7)

august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

(isolatEd imagEs havE BEEn EnlargEd for illustration purposEs)

ExhiBit Q-3 “worK for hirE” documEnt
QuEstionEd “mZ” initials
(purportEdly datEd april 28, 2003)

dissimilar crossBar slant

K-1(8)

K-1(10)

fig. 58.

Known initials of marK ZucKErBErg

august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

K-1(9)

K-1(11)

august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

(isolatEd imagEs havE BEEn EnlargEd for illustration purposEs)

3.

Vertical-Alignment Dissimilarities

I observed one vertical-alignment dissimilarity between the questioned “MZ” initials on Exhibit Q-3
and the known “MZ” initials on Exhibits K-1 and K-3.
a)

I examined the questioned “MZ” initials on page 1 of Exhibit Q-3 and found that the
beginning point of the initial stroke of the “Z” and the left-end of the crossbar of the
“Z” are vertically aligned. However, on page 4 of Exhibit K-3 and on each set of
known “MZ” initials contained in Exhibit K-1, the left-end of the crossbar of the “Z”
is set further to the right than the beginning point of the initial stroke of the “Z.” See
Figs. 59–61.

−18−

ExhiBit Q-3 “worK for hirE” documEnt
QuEstionEd “mZ” initials
(purportEdly datEd april 28, 2003)

no opEning

K-3

K-1(2)

fig. 59.

Known initials of marK ZucKErBErg
april 28, 2003

K-1(1)

august 6, 2004

K-1(3)

august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

(isolatEd imagEs havE BEEn EnlargEd for illustration purposEs)

ExhiBit Q-3 “worK for hirE” documEnt
QuEstionEd “mZ” initials
(purportEdly datEd april 28, 2003)

no opEning

K-1(4)

K-1(6)

fig. 60.

Known initials of marK ZucKErBErg
august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

K-1(5)

K-1(7)

august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

(isolatEd imagEs havE BEEn EnlargEd for illustration purposEs)

ExhiBit Q-3 “worK for hirE” documEnt
QuEstionEd “mZ” initials
(purportEdly datEd april 28, 2003)

no opEning

K-1(8)

K-1(10)

fig. 61.

Known initials of marK ZucKErBErg

august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

K-1(9)

K-1(11)

august 6, 2004

august 6, 2004

(isolatEd imagEs havE BEEn EnlargEd for illustration purposEs)

D.

Comparison of Questioned Writings to Known Ceglia Handwriting Exemplars
Confirms That The Ceglia Signature and Date of Signature on the Work for Hire
Document Are Tracings That Were Not Naturally Written

To determine the genuineness of the questioned Ceglia signature and date of signature on the Work
for Hire document presented for inspection in January 2011 (Exhibit Q-3), I compared those
handwritings with the known signature and date of signature appearing on Exhibit K-3. I observed
that the Ceglia signature and date contained in Exhibit Q-3 were written with unnaturally deliberate
and even pen pressure throughout the entire course of writing. In addition, I observed evidence of
unnaturally blunt ending strokes at the end of questioned writing movements, as well as evidence of
re-touching (i.e., stop and re-start) in the writing of the name “Paul” in the questioned Ceglia
signature.
Based upon my professional judgment and expertise, the evidence—captured in the images of the
Questioned and Known Documents included in this supplemental Expert Report—reflect that the
questioned Ceglia signature and date of signature on Exhibit Q-3 were slowly drawn and not naturally
written.
1.

Pen Pressure and Line Quality

I observed several differences in pen pressure and line quality between the questioned Ceglia
signature and date on Exhibit Q-3 and the known Ceglia signature and date on Exhibit K-3.
a)

I examined the questioned Ceglia signature on Exhibit Q-3 and found that there is
consistent pen pressure on both the upstrokes and the downstrokes, which are
indicative of a traced writing. However on Exhibit K-3, the letters “P,” “a,” and “l” in
“Paul” and the letter “l” in “Ceglia” are written with light upstrokes and heavier
downstrokes, evidencing the use of different pen pressures, which are indicative of
natural writing. See Fig. 62.

b)

I examined the questioned Ceglia signature on Exhibit Q-3 and found that the
upstrokes and downstrokes contained in the writing were drawn in a shaky, slow
manner, evidencing poor line quality and traced writing, as illustrated by the “l” in
both “Paul” and “Ceglia.” However, on page 6 of Exhibit K-3, the upstrokes of the
“l” in both “Paul” and “Ceglia” were written in a smooth, rapid, and steady fashion,
creating straight lines and evidencing superior line quality and natural writing. See
Fig. 63.

c)

I examined the handwritten number “4” in the questioned Ceglia date of signature on
Exhibit Q-3 and found that the staff of the numeral “4” was drawn in a shaky, slow
manner, evidencing poor line quality and traced writing. However, on Exhibit K-3,
the staff of the numeral “4” was written quickly, in a smooth, rapid, and steady
fashion, evidencing superior line quality and natural writing. See Fig. 64.
−19−

d)

I examined the slash marks in the questioned Ceglia date of signature on Exhibit Q-3
and found that they were both drawn in a shaky, slow manner, evidencing poor line
quality and traced writing. However, on Exhibit K-3, both slash marks were written
quickly, in a smooth, rapid, and steady fashion, evidencing superior line quality and
natural writing. See Fig. 65.

e)

I examined the number “03” in the questioned Ceglia date of signature on Exhibit Q-3
and found that the numeral “3” was drawn in a shaky, slow manner, creating angular
writing movements and evidencing poor line quality and traced writing. However, on
Exhibit K-3, the numeral “3” was written quickly, in a smooth, rapid, and steady
fashion, forming rounded and curved writing movements and evidencing superior line
quality and natural writing. See Fig. 66.

−20−

exhibit Q-3 “worK For hire” doCuMent
QueStioned “Paul Ceglia” Signature
(PurPortedly dated aPril 28, 2003)

ConSiStent Pen PreSSure

(indiCative oF traCed writing)

K-3

Known “Paul Ceglia” Signature
(dated aPril 28, 2003)

diFFering Pen PreSSure

Fig. 62.

(indiCative oF natural writing)

(iSolated iMageS have been enlarged For illuStration PurPoSeS)

exhibit Q-3 “worK For hire” doCuMent
QueStioned “Paul Ceglia” Signature
(PurPortedly dated aPril 28, 2003)

Poor line Quality
(indiCative oF traCed writing)

K-3

Fig. 63.

Known “Paul Ceglia” Signature
(dated aPril 28, 2003)

SuPerior line Quality
(indiCative oF natural writing)

(iSolated iMageS have been enlarged For illuStration PurPoSeS)

exhibit Q-3 “worK For hire” doCuMent
QueStioned “Paul Ceglia” date

Poor line Quality
(indiCative oF traCed writing)

K-3

Fig. 64.

Known “Paul Ceglia” date

SuPerior line Quality

(indiCative oF natural writing)

(iSolated iMageS have been enlarged For illuStration PurPoSeS)

exhibit Q-3 “worK For hire” doCuMent
QueStioned “Paul Ceglia” date

Poor line Quality

(indiCative oF traCed writing)
Known “Paul Ceglia” date
K-3

Fig. 65.

SuPerior line Quality

(indiCative oF natural writing)

(iSolated iMageS have been enlarged For illuStration PurPoSeS)

exhibit Q-3 “worK For hire” doCuMent
QueStioned “Paul Ceglia” date

Poor line Quality

(indiCative oF traCed writing)
Known “Paul Ceglia” date
K-3

Fig. 66.

SuPerior line Quality

(indiCative oF natural writing)

(iSolated iMageS have been enlarged For illuStration PurPoSeS)

2.

Tapered and Blunt Ending Strokes

I observed several differences in the ending strokes between the questioned Ceglia signature and date
of signature on Exhibit Q-3 and the known Ceglia signature and date of signature on Exhibit K-3.
a)

I examined the questioned Ceglia signature on Exhibit Q-3 and found that the ending
strokes of the “l” in “Paul” and the “a” in “Ceglia” ended abruptly, creating blunt
ending strokes, which are indicative of traced writing. However, on Exhibit K-3, the
ending strokes of the “l” in “Paul” and the “a” in “Ceglia” ended rapidly, creating
tapered ending strokes, which are indicative of natural writing. See Fig. 67.

b)

I examined the numbers “4,” “28,” and “03” in the questioned Ceglia date of signature
on Exhibit Q-3 and found that the ending of the first stroke of the numeral “4,” the
ending of the staff of the numeral “4,” the ending of the stroke of the numeral “2,” the
ending of the stroke of the numeral “8,” and the ending of the numeral “3” ended
abruptly, creating blunt ending strokes, indicative of traced writing. However, on
Exhibit K-3, the ending of the first stroke of the numeral “4,” the ending of the staff of
the numeral “4,” the ending of the stroke of the numeral “2,” the ending of the stroke
of the numeral “8,” and the ending of the numeral “3” ended rapidly, creating tapered
ending strokes, indicative of natural writing. See Fig. 68.

−21−

exhibit Q-3 “worK For hire” doCuMent
QueStioned “Paul Ceglia” Signature
(PurPortedly dated aPril 28, 2003)

blunt endingS

(indiCative oF traCed writing)

K-3

Fig. 67.

Known “Paul Ceglia” Signature
(dated aPril 28, 2003)

taPered endingS

(indiCative oF natural writing)

(iSolated iMageS have been enlarged For illuStration PurPoSeS)

exhibit Q-3 “worK For hire” doCuMent
QueStioned “Paul Ceglia” date

blunt endingS

(indiCative oF traCed writing)
Known “Paul Ceglia” date
K-3

Fig. 68.

taPered endingS

(indiCative oF natural writing)

(iSolated iMageS have been enlarged For illuStration PurPoSeS)

3.

Re-touching

I observed at least one instance of re-touching between the questioned Ceglia signature on Exhibit Q3 and the known Ceglia signature on Exhibit K-3.
a)

I examined the questioned Ceglia signature on Exhibit Q-3 and found that the writer,
before creating the connection to the letter “l” in “Paul,” stopped and re-started the
upward stroke to the “l,” indicative of traced writing. However, on Exhibit K-3, there
is a continuous writing movement resulting in a free-flowing connecting upward
stroke to the letter “l,” which is indicative of natural writing. See Fig. 69.

−22−

exhibit Q-3 “worK For hire” doCuMent
QueStioned “Paul Ceglia” Signature
(PurPortedly dated aPril 28, 2003)

StoP and re-Start

(indiCative oF traCed writing)

K-3

Fig. 69.

Known “Paul Ceglia” Signature
(dated aPril 28, 2003)

ContinuouS writing MoveMent
(indiCative oF natural writing)

(iSolated iMageS have been enlarged For illuStration PurPoSeS)

VI.
1.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceglia has proffered at least two different physical documents as the Work for Hire
document.
A.

B.

In response to the reports of Ceglia’s experts, filed June 4, 2012 (Doc. Nos. 414–22),
and in light of my specialized expertise and training, I performed the same type of
analysis on the handwritten features (signatures and dates) that appear on page 2 of
the Questioned Documents.

C.

There are at least 12 significant dissimilarities among and between the questioned
handwritten features that appear on page 2 of the Questioned Documents.

D.

2.

In my initial Expert Report, I concluded that Ceglia has proffered at least two
different physical documents as the Work for Hire document. That initial phase of
analysis considered the handwritten features that appear on page 1 of the Questioned
Documents, four images that Ceglia has presented as images of the same Work for
Hire document.

The presence of these dissimilarities confirms and further supports my conclusion, to
the highest degree of certainty possible, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the
Questioned Documents are images of at least two different physical documents (both
pages 1 and 2).

The questioned “Mark Zuckerberg” signature and date of signature on the Work for
Hire document were not written by Mark Zuckerberg.
A.

There are numerous instances of hesitation and re-touching in the questioned
Zuckerberg signature and date on the Work for Hire document presented for
inspection in January 2011 (Exhibit Q-3) as well as significant differences in line
quality and letter formation and design between Exhibit Q-3 and several original
known handwritten exemplars of Mark Zuckerberg. Those original known
handwritten exemplars are Exhibits K-3, K-4, K-5, and K-6.

B.

The presence of these characteristics and dissimilarities demonstrate that the
questioned Zuckerberg signature and date on Exhibit Q-3 are not naturally written.

C.

Moreover, I examined several handwritings, including Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2, that are
nearly identical to the questioned Zuckerberg signature and date on Exhibit Q-3. The
questioned Zuckerberg signature and date on Exhibit Q-3 could have been modeled
off of those handwritings, or all of those handwritings could have been modeled off of
another source.

−23−

D.

3.

I therefore conclude to the highest degree of certainty possible, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that the questioned Zuckerberg signature and date found on the
Work for Hire document were modeled after a near-identical source-signature and
date—that is, the questioned Zuckerberg initials are unnaturally written tracings that
were not written by Mark Zuckerberg.

The questioned “MZ” initials on the Work for Hire document were not written by Mark
Zuckerberg.
A.

B.

The presence of these dissimilarities in ending strokes demonstrates that the
questioned Zuckerberg initials on Exhibit Q-3 are not naturally written.

C.

Moreover, I examined several handwritings, including Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2, that are
nearly identical to the questioned Zuckerberg initials on Exhibit Q-3. The questioned
Zuckerberg initials on Exhibit Q-3 could have been modeled off of those
handwritings, or all of those handwritings could have been modeled off of another
source.

D.

4.

There are numerous differences in ending strokes, slant/slope qualities, and verticalalignment between the questioned “MZ” initials on the Work for Hire document
presented for inspection in January 2011 (Exhibit Q-3) and several known
handwritten exemplars of Mark Zuckerberg. Those known handwritten exemplars are
Exhibits K-1 and K-3.

I therefore conclude to the highest degree of certainty possible, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that the questioned Zuckerberg initials found on the Work for Hire
document were modeled after a near-identical source signature and date—that is, the
questioned Zuckerberg initials are unnaturally written tracings that were not written
by Mark Zuckerberg.

The questioned “Paul Ceglia” signature and date of signature on the Work for Hire
document are tracings.
A.

There are instances of re-touching in the questioned Ceglia signature and date on the
Work for Hire document presented for inspection in January 2011 (Exhibit Q-3), as
well as numerous differences in pen pressure, line quality, and ending strokes between
Exhibit Q-3 and the known Ceglia signature and date on Exhibit K-3.

B.

The presence of these instances of re-touching and dissimilarities in pen pressure, line
quality, and ending strokes demonstrate that the questioned Ceglia signature and date
on Exhibit Q-3 are not naturally written.

−24−