The fraud would be where he provided a report to the newspaper saying it could have been done with a typewriter and then in their "running with it". How he did it conviently gets left out and so the "public" is given a false story.
He described how he did it to cover himself if it was discovered, but he certainly didn't expect a disclosure to be used in the story.
The fraud would be that a story backed up by a PHD, and exhibits would be published and claimed to be true by the newspaper.
His intent was that he would be the "expert" who would prove the documents were not bogus.
What you are describing would be, at worst, fraud on the part of the Boston Globe, not the professor himself. Again, he did not misrepresent himself or his methods. If the Boston Globe fails to reveal the full extent of his methods, that MIGHT be fraud. But after Rathergate you know there's no way they would be that stupid, especially since his entire methodology is out there on the Internet for all to see.
Having said this, there is some evidence that he's been modifying his document in response to this controversy to cover his ass even more. It could very well be that, 2 days ago before this story broke, he WASN'T totally truthful about his methods. If that proves true, then I will agree with you that he was committing academic fraud.