The trouble with careful scholarly analysis is that it takes time.
Professor David Hailey, Director of the Interactive Media Research Laboratory at Utah State University, has written a paper titled "Toward Identifying the Font Used in the Bush Memos" that reports the results of a detailed examination of what can be gleaned from the CBS documents. The conclusions are very interesting.
First, as many have suspected, the font is definitely not Times New Roman (or any other version of Times, for that matter). As seemed clear to me from the beginning (I kept waiting for someone with appropriate credentials to point this out), the font is a slab serif typeface. It is closely based on standard typewriter type as it would have been adapted for a proportional spacing typewriter. (Slab serif fonts such as Lubalin Graph and Serifa are available for computers but they are not exactly common. If one were going to bother to select a slab serif in order to match that property of typewritten text, you'd know enough to just use Courier.)
More importantly, Dr. Hailey shows that there are clear systematic indications of the type having been created by an impact printer of some sort. For example,
(See the paper for much more.) He concludes
Implications are that there is nothing in this evidence that would indicate the memos are inauthentic.
The question is what are we to make of this? Given the nature of news cycles, it is unlikely that this will get much notice now. And even if it did, it's not clear that it would have any benefit. The conventional wisdom is satisfied with its resolution to the story and new facts can only serve to make it a continuing distraction from the things that matter now.
So, it seems that the time that it takes to perform a scholarly analysis sufficient to make the truth known means that the truth is by then politically irrelevant. Or, as some might say, at this point, it's probably academic.