Alamo Traces (61 page)

The manner in which the loop at the bottom of the capital “J” is formed in the name
Jose
. The real signature shows a loop that is flat on the right side and the left side is curved—a shape somewhat like one would get if they dropped a ball of clay to the floor. This loop is almost parallel to the letter stem, which connects the v-like top to the loop.

Whereas, the bottom loop in the capital “J” in the alleged signature is an elongated leaf-like shape that juts from the stem at almost a ninety degree angle.

In the authentic signature, the ending small “a” in
dela
runs into the capital “P” of
Pena
, thus linking
dela
and the “P” together. This does not occur in the alleged Pena signature. Also,
dela
is incorrect. It should be written as two words:
de la
. Both examples, however, make the same mistake. Still, in the previous example of
dela noche
, we find that the authentic example runs the ending “a” of
dela
into
noche
. Whereas, the alleged handwriting does not do so.

The capital “P” in
Pena
in the authentic signature is shaped differently from the “P” in the alleged signature. The authentic signature has an egg-shape loop at bottom left of the letter. The alleged signature does not have this oval loop in the capital “P” in Pena. This oval shaped loop can also be seen in the way Pena wrote the name
Portilla
and the manner in which he formed a capital “B.”

The ending small “e” of
Enrique
in the authentic signature crooks back to the left with a sharp bend shaped like a hook. Whereas, in the alleged signature, the pen stroke in the “e” turns back to the left with a wide curve.

The
tilde
that appears over the “n” in
Pena
in the authentic signature is shaped like a curve. Whereas, in the alleged signature it is written like a straight line.

The differences in the authentic signature and the alleged signature are obvious. This investigator is not a certified document examiner, but one does not have to be so trained and qualified to see them. The alleged Pena signature does not appear to be an attempt to copy the true Pena signature. Rather, the alleged signature appears to be an attempt to simulate Pena's signature.

Moreover, bona fide signatures, A and B, which were written in June 1836, pretty much match genuine signature D, which was penned in December 1836. Thus, signatures A, B, and D are fairly consistent in their characteristics. Also, the rubrics for signatures A, B, and D appear to have been written by the same hand. Whereas, signature C, the alleged Pena signature, which was written in September 1836, and by date, appears between the authentic signatures, looks to be in a different hand. It makes no sense that Pena would have written his signature one way in June, changed the manner of the signature in September, then returned to the June form in December. In sum, the September 1836 signature does not appear to be Pena's true signature.

When historian and illustrator Jack Jackson reviewed the handwriting comparisons presented in this section, he exclaimed, “It's obvious they're different handwriting!” Then he offered an explanation for the memoir manuscript not being in Pena's handwriting. He said Pena could have dictated the memoir manuscript to someone while in prison. Yes, that is a possibility. On the other hand, given the conditions (sick and
without money and property in solitary confinement) under which Pena was imprisoned, how probable is it that he could have created the manuscript and dictated it to a fellow prisoner? Also, how likely is it that the document could have been created without Pena writing a single page of the memoir? On top of that, Pena's alleged secretary often formed his letters and words almost exactly as Pena did. What are the odds of that happening?
⁴²

Then, look at the conditions under which Pena wrote the “clean” copy of the Campaign Diary. The diary was written in the summer of 1836 when Pena, a lieutenant colonel, was at rest in Matamoros, awaiting a decision from the Mexican government about a second Texas campaign. This was a time when Pena had the resources to dictate the chronicle to a military aide or a hired secretary. Instead, Pena penned the rewrite himself. The “clean” manuscript is totally in Pena's handwriting. Moreover, the 109 pages of the manuscript are all of the same paper, with only one watermark. Thread holes along the left sides of the pages show that at one time the manuscript was bound.
⁴³

The memoir manuscript, however, is written on various types of paper. In total, fourteen different graphic watermarks and eleven different name watermarks can be found in the document. Yes, the paper appears to be the right age and for the most part is paper that could have been obtained in Mexico in the 1830s. Still, the numerous watermarks feature is a forgery characteristic.
⁴⁴

Pena supporters argue that many different types of paper found in the memoir manuscript simply reflect Pena's prison situation. That he had to “beg, borrow, and steal” to obtain paper while in prison. Yes, that is an explanation. Pena did write a number of letters to Mexican officials and newspapers while he was imprisoned. So he obviously had a source for a small amount of writing paper when in prison. However, Pena's petition to the government demanding his release from prison was rejected because of the disrespect for military officials that was exhibited in the document. Thus, is it not logical that prison officials would have given Pena a large amount of paper to write a personal and unofficial chronicle of the campaign against Texas that also was disrespectful of military and government officials.
⁴⁵

In summary, the Pena memoir manuscript has a number of elements that indicate it was not written by Pena. First, there is the lack of a satisfactory provenance. Jesus Sanchez Garza, the Mexico City coin collector
and dealer who discovered the Pena collection and first published the memoir manuscript in Spanish, never reported how and where he obtained the Pena documents.
⁴⁶
If this were the only problem for the memoir manuscript, it would not be sufficient to declare the document a forgery. There are, however, other problems. Second, there are at least fourteen different kinds of paper in the manuscript. Forgers often have to collect period paper from many different sources to obtain enough paper for a forgery project. Third, the memoir manuscript is clearly not in Pena's handwriting. Fourth, a great deal of the information in the memoir manuscript is not found in the Campaign Diary. This data appears to come from other sources. In some cases the material came from sources that were not available to Pena because they were written after his death. Thus, these derivative sections in the memoir manuscript are best described as source anachronisms.

The source anachronisms that deal with David Crockett as a noncombatant and the lack of Mexican surgeons at the Alamo were covered in chapter eight. There are other such anachronisms in the memoir document. For example, look at what the chronicle says about the burning of the bodies of the Alamo defenders. That account reports: “. . . within a few hours a funeral pyre rendered into ashes those men who moments before had been so brave that in a blind fury they had unselfishly offered their lives and had met their ends in combat.”
⁴⁷

Any fireman or crime scene investigator will tell you that a complete burning of that many bodies in a “few hours” is impossible. A wood fire does not produce the high and constant heat necessary to completely burn a body. Even in a modern cremation a body's large bones are not destroyed. Also, the burning of a human body does not produce ashes. That belief is a misnomer. The “ashes” that come from cremation are machine-crushed bone, not true ashes.
⁴⁸

Another questionable Mexican account, however, makes the same claims about the burning of the Alamo defenders' bodies. Francisco Becerra, a Mexican sergeant, in 1882 allegedly furnished a description of the body burning that is identical in meaning to Pena's report. Becerra claimed: “The bodies of those brave men, who fell fighting that morning, as men have seldom fought, were reduced to ashes before the sun had set.”
⁴⁹

The words used in the Pena and Becerra accounts are different, but they convey the same meaning: (1) the defenders were brave; (2) they
died in combat; (3) the way they fought was unique; (4) their bodies were burned to ashes in a few hours.

More likely, the burning of the Alamo bodies continued into the night and perhaps the morning of March 7, 1836. Undoubtedly, the bodies' large bones were not destroyed. Also, a large number of charred hunks of flesh probably survived the fires. That was certainly the case with the Texian bodies that were burned after the executions at Goliad.
⁵⁰

Pena was at the Alamo and would not have reported such an inaccurate story about the burning of the Alamo dead. Pena supporters, however, might argue that Becerra was at the Alamo, and his statement about the disposal of the Texian bodies verifies Pena's account.

That would be a superficial view of the source materials. There is no doubt Pena participated in the storming of the Alamo. Becerra appears to have claimed he was at the Alamo. There is, however, no independent evidence that proves Becerra participated in the famous fight. Moreover, the Becerra report is extremely unreliable. Walter Lord described the chronicle as: “Probably the least reliable of all the Mexican accounts.” The late Dan Kilgore, though he used the account in his book
How Did Davy Die?
, viewed the Becerra story as unreliable. Also, he wrote: “The early accounts by Urissa and Becerra have a ring of folklore instead of history. . . .” The Becerra description of the burning of the Texian bodies more likely came from the mind and pen of John S. Ford, the old Texas Ranger and newspaperman, who allegedly interviewed Becerra while he was in Ford's military unit during the Civil War and published the account in 1882 in the Texas School for the Deaf magazine,
Texas Mute Ranger
.
⁵¹