Rather's lone expert, Marcel Matley, "is primarily a handwriting expert whose expertise in document evaluation has been challenged by the head of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners," reported the New York Post.

What's more, the document in question was a photocopy, not an original, something Matley himself once said precluded any conclusive authentication.

In an essay for the American Law Institute unearthed by RatherBiased.com, Matley wrote:

"Do not passively accept a copy as the sole basis of a case. Every copy, intentionally or unintentionally, is in some way false to the original. In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries."

In fact, by the time of Rather's Friday broadcast, an array of document experts had spoken out on his earlier report. So, why didn't the CBS News star cite any of their analysis?

Because almost none of it backed his reporting.

Sandra Ramsey Lines, for instance - a forensic document expert who edits the Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners - told the Associated Press that she "could testify in court that, beyond a reasonable doubt, her opinion was that the memos were written on a computer."

Lines told the AP that she was "virtually certain" that the memos were written on a computer, not a Vietnam-era typewriter.

Beyond the particulars of Rather's dubious documentation, new details emerged on Saturday strongly suggesting that the evidence in question had been fabricated.

The memo - a complaint by Bush's Guard commander, Jerry Killian, that he was being pressured by his own boss, then-Col. Walter B. "Buck" Staudt, to "sugarcoat" Bush's record - had a 1973 date.

According to the Dallas Morning News, however, Staudt retired in 1972.

Courage, Dan.

Editor's note: