[ligeplodore]

Expert Says Astor’s Signature Was Forged


Brooke Astor’s signature as it appears on a codicil to her will from March 2004
nytimes.com
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI
October 20, 2006
One of the most divisive questions in the legal dispute over Brooke Astor’s care and fortune has been whether someone forged her signature on a set of changes to her will. On March 3, 2004, the last of three amendments to Mrs. Astor’s will was signed, with the cumulative effect being that millions of dollars would be redirected to her son, Anthony D. Marshall.
According to interviews and records, present at the signing of the amended will in addition to Mrs. Astor, who was less than a month shy of her 102nd birthday, were two of her aides and Francis X. Morrissey Jr., a lawyer with whom Mr. Marshall had a close working relationship at the time.
Mrs. Astor’s signature did wind up on the document, but in a report concluded this week, a nationally known handwriting expert has concluded that Mrs. Astor did not put it there herself.
The expert, Gus R. Lesnevich, a forensic handwriting examiner who was hired by Mrs. Astor’s court-appointed lawyer, said in his report that Mrs. Astor “could not have written the questioned ‘Brooke Russell Astor’ signature dated March 3, 2004, due to the deterioration of her ability to write her name.”
Mr. Lesnevich reviewed examples of Mrs. Astor’s signature going as far back as 1992. In his report, he asserts that “in this case, the questioned ‘Brooke Russell Astor’ signature and known signatures of Brooke Russell Astor contain elements of dissimilar letter formations” and dissimilar “execution.” He said the 2004 signature was different from signatures executed less than a month earlier and about six weeks before that.
Lawyers for Mr. Morrissey and Mr. Marshall have long insisted that any suggestion of forgery is nonsense, and that Mrs. Astor knew what she was doing when she signed the document, known as a codicil.
Mr. Lesnevich’s report is likely to inflame the fight over the wealth of one of New York’s legendary families. In July, Philip Marshall, one of Mr. Marshall’s twin sons, filed a court petition accusing his father of neglecting Mrs. Astor’s care while enriching himself from her assets. Last week, the various parties in the case reached a settlement under which Mr. Marshall will pay $1.35 million in late penalties and interest relating to his mother’s tax returns, give back valuable jewelry and artwork, and abdicate his stewardship of his mother’s financial and health affairs.
Mr. Marshall, 82, and his wife, Charlene, 61, are also required to relinquish their positions as executors of Mrs. Astor’s estate. As part of the settlement, any potential claims against Mr. Marshall concerning his handling of his mother’s wealth would be dealt with in Surrogate’s Court after Mrs. Astor’s death. Mrs. Astor, 104, has spent the last several months at her estate in Westchester County under the care of her longtime friend Annette de la Renta.
In light of Mr. Lesnevich’s report, the concerns about the signature — and about whether Mrs. Astor understood what was taking place — will almost certainly be explored further in Surrogate’s Court.
Susan I. Robbins, the lawyer who was appointed by the court last summer to safeguard Mrs. Astor’s interests, said that what initially raised suspicions about the signature on the final change to the will was that the signature was strikingly much thicker and firmer than the signatures on the other two, which were written in thin, shaky script.
Ms. Robbins said in a brief telephone interview yesterday, “I propose informing the appropriate authorities of this matter, as I believe Mrs. Astor would want me to.” Mr. Morrissey’s lawyer, Michael S. Ross, said that Mr. Lesnevich’s opinion on the signature matter was no more than speculation.
“It does not take into consideration such factors as the pen that was used, the surface that was used and the health of Mrs. Astor on the particular day she executed the third codicil,” Mr. Ross said. “Mr. Morrissey is absolutely firm in his position that she signed that codicil and was cognizant of what she was doing at the time.”
Mr. Morrisey was suspended from practicing law in the state for two years in the 1990’s for mishandling a client’s escrow account.
Mr. Lesnevich declined to comment on the report. According to his Web site, he has about 38 years of experience in the field of handwriting comparisons and document analysis and has served as an expert for the United States government in a number of high-profile cases, including those against Imelda Marcos, Leona Helmsley, Giovanni Gambino, Oliver North and Michael Milken.
In a telephone interview about the report’s conclusion, Philip Marshall said, “I find it so sad that certain people my grandmother trusted were exploiting her when she was so vulnerable,” he said.
One of Mr. Marshall’s lawyers, Kenneth E. Warner, said by e-mail that he would not have any comment on the signature issue until his own expert had completed a report.
The third codicil instructs the executor to sell her real estate holdings as part of the estate. Previously, Mrs. Astor’s will gave all her real property, including her Park Avenue duplex, to Mr. Marshall. Liquidating the real estate ultimately increases the executor’s commissions, which are generally based on the value of the estate, according to experts.
The second codicil, dated Jan. 12, 2004, designated Mr. Marshall as executor of his mother’s estate. After becoming sole executor, Mr. Marshall then named his wife and Mr. Morrissey as co-executors. But in August, after Mr. Morrissey’s troubled legal career became public, Mr. Marshall removed him as an executor, according to court papers.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
***
Astor Lawyer Seeks Inquiry Into Signature

nytimes.com
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI
October 21, 2006

Brooke Astor’s court-appointed lawyer is asking the Manhattan district attorney’s office to investigate whether a crime was committed during the signing of a final set of changes to Mrs. Astor’s will in 2004.
The request by the lawyer, Susan I. Robbins, stems from a report completed this week by a nationally known handwriting expert who concluded that Mrs. Astor “could not have written the questioned ‘Brooke Russell Astor’ signature dated March 3, 2004, due to the deterioration of her ability to write her name.”
Barbara Thompson, a spokeswoman for Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau, said Mrs. Astor’s lawyer was seeking “to determine whether or not there are matters that rise to the level of criminality.” She added, “We will take a look at the materials.”
Ms. Robbins had retained the handwriting expert, Gus R. Lesnevich, to analyze Mrs. Astor’s signature on the last of three amendments to her will that cumulatively would redirect millions of dollars to her son, Anthony D. Marshall. Mrs. Astor, 104, has been in fragile health for several years.
According to interviews and records, several people attended the signing of the amended will, in addition to Mrs. Astor: two of her aides and Francis X. Morrissey Jr., a lawyer with whom Mr. Marshall had a close working relationship at the time. For two years in the mid-1990’s Mr. Morrissey was suspended from practicing law in the state for mishandling a client’s escrow account.
Mr. Morrissey’s lawyer, Michael S. Ross, said yesterday, “I am confident that the district attorney’s office will find that Mr. Morrissey is absolutely innocent of any misconduct.”
One of Mr. Marshall’s lawyers, Kenneth E. Warner, said that Mr. Marshall would be shocked if the signature on the third codicil, or amendment to the will, was a forgery.
He added: “Mr. Marshall did not receive any additional inheritance from the third codicil. It was primarily a tax-planning device to save estate taxes.”
Ms. Robbins has said she became suspicious about the signature because it was much thicker and firmer than the ones on the two earlier amendments.
Those two signatures were written in thin, shaky script.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company