Forensic document examination, scientific examination of a questioned document, may identify handwriting or signature (with the person) or typing (with the typewriter), prove the source of other marks or incidents, elucidate obliterated or erased contents, detect alteration or page substitution, demonstrate that writing was performed with a certain type of pen, provide evidence that accounts were written up at a sitting, or identify the countries and districts of origin of the materials of the document.
Alteration, erasure, substitution of other writing and so on are types of forgery, and forensic document examination is concerned with the detection and demonstration of forgery, or, where forgery has been alleged but did not occur, with vindicating the questioned document.
Forensic document examination, more traditionally known as the examination of questioned documents, is a discipline which developed out of the ancient useful art of handwriting identification, extended to encompass all matters relating to a document as a physical object, the physical paper or other substrate, staples, fasteners, adhesives and the like, and the physical writing or marking, the ink deposit on the document surface, as distinct from the intelligible content or formal significance of the writing or marking.
In the time of Quintilian (ca. 90 c.e.) part of this discipline was within the province of the Roman lawyer, concerned to avoid unexpected embarrassment in the Forum should there be a signature unattested, or a thread broken, or wax disturbed. The earliest known book on the principles of handwriting identification was that of Prosper Alderisius, published in Italy in 1594. Traité des inscriptions en faux by Jaques Raveneau was printed in Paris and published in 1666, banned by arrêt du Parlement in 1670 and reprinted in Luxembourg in 1673.
The discipline received a modern
scientific and ethical impetus with the works of
Albert S. Osborn of New York, in particular
his Questioned Documents (1910, 1929), which gave it its
modern name. It was of Osborn’s
methodology that
John Henry Wigmore wrote, The unanimous
testimony of attesters [witnesses] may fail of credit even though the
only opposing evidence is that of the alleged maker’s handwriting as
analysed by expert witnesses. . . This possibility is one of the
results of the modern scientific study of handwriting.
The enlarged Second Edition of 1929 is a masterpiece which remains one
of the most highly-regarded texts for training and reference in
evidentiary document examination.
The techniques of the physical sciences, particularly chemical analysis of the document materials, are of some significance in the field. As an examination of physical objects it has a scientific flavour and ethos and seeks recruits from among persons with scientific education. The predominant activity, however, remains the examination of handwriting.
With the rise of forensic science to fashionable prominence (which followed the discovery of its entertainment value by television dramatists) many universities have developed forensic science courses which have an introduction to forensic document examination as one of their components. Much earlier a very few universities, including the University of Lausanne in Switzerland and the University of Strathclyde in Scotland, offered higher degrees in forensic science and included the subject of forensic document examination. But most employed forensic scientists had and have conventional science qualifications.
Forensic Document Examination is a scientific examination of a certain kind of physical evidence, a document, concerning which some suspicion exists or some fact is desired to be proved. This document, the subject of the suspicion or the need, is called the questioned document. There may be a frankly disputed document. The dispute may centre around the question of the genuineness of the signature, or of the handwriting of a certain provision, or some other element, paper, ink, obliterated writing, etc.
While evidentiary document examination involves many
techniques, the glue
that holds the field together is
the examination of handwriting to identify the
writer, or to prove that the handwriting was not written by a certain
person. The latter, exclusionary opinion, is often not possible. There
are many reasons why writings can differ. But a description of the
nature of the differences may help the tribunal to make a finding.
In common parlance, forensic handwriting examiners are often called
handwriting experts. Here we are talking legal language. It arises
from the law of evidence. The term expert
is a legal
one. It means someone whose opinion may be evidence. Expert
evidence is also called opinion evidence. Whether a witness in
court proceedings is an expert witness, or not, is always an
issue for the presiding judge to decide. It is decided in each
individual matter. It is therefore a slightly presumptuous for a forensic
document examiner to call himself or herself a handwriting expert.
The term so-called expert
is sometimes used
pejoratively on the assumption that expert
is the
examiner’s own boast or self-promotion. But some forensic
document examiners, more careful with language than most of us, refer
to themselves as so-called
experts, aware that
it is for the court to call them experts, if it so decides.
In each matter at law, when the so-called expert steps into the witness box, the next step is that the witness gives evidence of his or her qualifications, credentials, CV; and, after that, may be allowed by the judge to give expert evidence: after that, for the purpose, only, of testifying in that particular matter, is not just a so-called expert but an expert.
In connection with this theme of experts and so-called experts it
is worth pointing out that the forensic document examiner is not in
possession of arcane gifts or special powers of vision. The eyes of
the document examiner are just like those of the layman
.
When the document examiner first encounters the documents in a new
matter, he or she sees a strange, unknown handwriting, and sees it
with the eyes of a layman
.
There are no signs
, occult or otherwise, that can
only be seen by the eye of the expert
. Indeed,
something that distinguishes forensic document examination from much
of forensic science is that a thing painfully found can be easily
demonstrated when pinpointed in a photograph with slight magnification.
Those things are not signs
. If you want to call them
so, feel free. But there is no catalogue of them. Lists may be and are
made and published, but they are only examples of things that have been
significant in the past. The broken thread that we had better find at home
before we head to the Forum. The different infra-red fluorescence of the
ink of the first digit of the dollar amount. The tremor of the ink line at one
point. The unnatural uniformity of the writing pressure at some other
point. The signature whose writer has obligingly corrected
a supposed bungle that the true writer of the signature always makes ---
or perhaps the problem is the forger’s interpretation of the only
example of that signature he ever saw. A list can be made.
Better classified and more systematic lists can be made, and can be
useful in training the next generation of forensic document examiners.
But the professional will not call those things signs
and the
trainee will not thereby become quicker at finding them, only
more aware of the class of things that need to be found, more hardened
to the work and the time needed to find them, and more experienced, as
a result of things that he or she has in fact found in questioned
documents. More experienced, indeed, in
reflecting upon the significance for identification or proof of some
thing that he or she has found.
So, there is no such thing as a handwriting expert. There are only workers: only people who see and perceive a strange handwriting just like anyone else does: but then begin work, then begin a search for evidence. They need to know how to perform that search, they need to be equipped with the appropriate instruments to do it, to go a little beyond naked-eye comparison, and to record the visual evidence photographically for later production in court at a standard of accuracy and detail, of professionalism, needed for each particular demonstration; and they need to be able to properly evaluate what they see in the course of that search.
The last is critical. Osborn at several points in his writings states, correctly, that the (or a) major cause of error in handwriting identification is an inability to reason about handwriting, a failure in the powers of reasoning necessary for the searcher to notice and correctly evaluate what is in the handwriting. Questions have to be answered such as, is this enough? have I finished? is this thing that suggests identity (or difference) sufficiently supported by other things that I have seen? is this apparent match real, or a chance occurrence? have I found, in aggregate, decisive and totally persuasive, totally irresistible evidence of identity (or difference)? or have I only found enough to assert probable identity (or difference)? or perhaps, at the end of my best efforts, only enough to say that so-and-so is some, to my mind slight and totally inconclusive, indication of it?
And they need, such workers need, as a precondition to or during
that search, time to learn: time to study a handwriting never seen
before, as strange to the expert
as it would be to the
layman
, to become sufficiently familiar with it to be
able detect significant patterns in the midst of normal handwriting
variation. Not having magical eyes, having eyes no better than those
of the layman
, they have no choice but to go through
that study and learning process.
A number of photographs illustrating questioned document cases will be put here.
The reasons for the importance of handwriting are that (1) it is the most widely accessible technology for adding content to documents, (2) it is capable of identifying the person, and (3) it is used (in the form of a signature) to authenticate a document.
Examples of the need to identify handwriting include the handwritten will produced by the other son after the death; the chemistry notes found at the clandestine drug laboratory in remote bushland; the anonymous letters received by the employer over years, defaming the managers of many shops in the chain; the amounts in words and the numeric entries in the cheques from the stolen book; the long running legal action by the injured worker against the insurer in which the defendant heartlessly denies that there is any chronic aftermath of the injury, pretends that the worker is now in perfect health, and whose latest stunt has been to produce a handwritten note recording weights lifted at the gym and pretend that the invalid wrote it; the anonymous handwritten letters propounding policy received by a senior member of a certain society, whose own ideology is sharply at odds with that prevailing in the region that he oversees, who in consequence has sacked one of several subordinate presidents and set others a-tremble; the note passed under the teller's window, which of course was really fabricated by the police, who had examples of my handwriting on file and could make it look as though I wrote it; the entries in the duplicate cashbook; the letter produced by the bank after he left, in which she, years ago, had accepted sole responsibility for the mortgage; another suicide note---or perhaps not; the viciously obscene and cruelly racist anonymous letter received by her, the only girl in the class y-wimpled wel, the teller of marvellous and horrific tales of the refugee camp, well-liked by all. Hmm, an exception. No need to see her handwriting: a hate-filled letter obviously written by another student in the class, obviously; and we know who: we can see the similarities: here.
Forensic handwriting examination is concerned with identity of a writer and with the genuineness of documents. It does not concern itself with character divination, nor with fortune telling. It is not graphology. It is not any kind of psychology. The document examiner does not generally meet the person whose handwriting is the subject of the examination, generally knows nothing of that person and has no detailed knowledge of the case at law. The examination is impersonal.
Forensic document examiners are sometimes asked to
decipher
handwriting that is simply illegible. To read
what by definition cannot be read.
They can, typically,
decipher
, or restore to legibility, writing that has
been obliterated or the contents of a document that has been defaced,
sometimes quite seriously damaged. There is never a guarantee of
success, but that is one of the things that forensic document
examiners do. We may be able to see through
the obliteration, or cause the traces to fluoresce strongly. Or
something.
But recognizing the letters and words of writing that is simply illegible is a different problem from restoration. It is a problem that all of literate humanity sometimes faces. There is, as far as we know, no special skill in doing it. Perhaps some people have a gift. But there is no science, no technology, no course of training, in that kind of recognition. We are not specialists in it. You can do it as well as we can, probably better.
It is a curious thing in such cases that one often has a peculiar
sense of being on the verge of recognizing a word, of being within a
whisker of working it out. We feel so close that it seems certain
that someone else will instantly recognize the word. It will be a
no-brainer
for them.
Let’s consult a forensic document examiner!
Yet the thing
we think we are on the verge of recognizing forever eludes us all.
Handwriting examination is in practice a comparison of the handwriting in the questioned document with other writings in other documents called standards.
A standard, according to the Penguin Macquarie Dictionary, is anything used as a basis of comparison. Yet the comparison is ultimately with the handwriting of a person.
This means that we look ultimately for a collection of the writing habits of that person in the questioned document: we do not look ultimately for similarities with (or differences from) particular standards. The standards are only evidence of the handwriting. They may be very poor evidence of it if they are limited or unrepresentative.
Most document examiners, no matter how much or little business they do, have at least one case in hand that is waiting on the supply of further standards. In the Police / criminal prosecution domain in some jurisdictions a very large proportion of handwriting cases come to nothing because of the unwillingness of police to put effort into the search for course-of-business standards. (Sometimes that is because they have plenty of other evidence.)
The question of representative standards is a fundamental key to successful handwriting examination. If you care about time, if you want your case to breeze through the examination process, talk to your examiner about the adequacy of standards, and exercise the utmost diligence in your pursuit of the best standards available,
It is not simple. Handwriting can be disguised, both by the
reluctant target of the actions of others (such as the suspect in a
criminal prosecution) and by the proponent of an action to deny what
may be valid signatures, and to accuse others. Hence the importance
of course of business
standards, particularly those
dated a few months before the disputed matter could have been fully
planned.
But still it is not simple. Standards can be selected from a much greater number to guide the examiner towards a certain opinion. Sometimes and with some examiners this works. Far more often the examiner senses some problem the reason of which is not clear, something that does not add up. The result is likely to be that the case is put on hold and the client asked to supply yet more standards. Ultimately a qualified report noting the deficiencies and limitations may be issued.
In such a case the judicial body hearing the evidence should interest itself in the reasons for the severe deficiencies. The forensic document examiner is kept by the client in a dark place, given documents but little information, and must take no notice of much that is claimed about the matter. This is as it should be, at least up to a point. But it creates a susceptibility to deception, and certainly invites attempts at deception.
And it means that while ample course-of-business standards, as many as possible, can be asked for, the document examiner has no means of knowing whether some tiny number that is produced, hardly comparable with the questioned writing, is indeed as many as possible.
The document examiner has no way of knowing whether the client rarely signs documents and genuinely can find or obtain no more course-of-business signatures, whether there has been a selection from a large number in order to point the examiner in the desired direction, or whether the request has not been taken seriously by solicitor or client, who have not cared to inconvenience themselves over it. The document examiner has no way of knowing, cannot find out, might ask, but could take no notice of the reply. But the judicial body can find out, can require proof.
Curbside Opinions
The expression curbside opinion
was used by
A. S. Osborn in the early 20th Century, with the obvious
meaning, the document examiner accosted on his stately promenade and
asked to express an opinion about a paper thrust into his hand. But
it expresses a universal truth of forensic handwriting
examination---what is most salient is not necessarily most
significant. What is seen at first may mislead. There have been
recent illustrations, in which a document examiner has gone to a law
office, looked at documents and expressed a provisional opinion which,
on further examination, had to be reversed.
A satisfactory and robust examination requires the documents to be lodged at the examiner’s laboratory. It is difficult to explain why this is so. It is not only because of the outwardly visible facilities, the microscopes and other laboratory instruments and conveniences. The best explanation is that handwriting has a complexity that is not apparent at first sight. There is no power to instantly form an opinion, even though the handwriting may be laid out on a single sheet so that it can all be viewed in an instant. Sorry to be tedious. This matter has been discussed above
One might equally say no witness-box opinions
. It
sometimes happens that the witness is shown a new document in the witness
box and asked to take a few minutes and then express an opinion. Such
requests or demands need to be resisted. It is unwise to seek to know
an immature opinion.
On one occasion there was an urgent request from a
lawyer to attend at a government office to view
a
signature and write a report. The questioned signature and the
standards had previously been sent to a government forensic science
laboratory but the document examiners there had been unable to form an
opinion. Clearly a difficult matter, but the government agency with
whom the signed form had been lodged would not release it to us. We
have upper-floor offices in two inner-city buildings in Adelaide.
Nobody knows where the document would be if we had it. And we have a
large and very heavy fire and thief resisting
and
drill proof
Ratner safe, used free of charge on request.
Our security is not bad. But we couldn’t be given the document for
detailed examination in a technically difficult case, although it had
been given to others. We could only go somewhere and
view
it. In such cases, seek a court order.
Please avoid urgency. Understand that expert
does not mean
magic
. If you decide at the last moment that forensic document
examination is needed, the first thing you need to do is apply for a
large entension of the filing deadline or a lengthy adjournment.
Hurry is a limitation, as are restricted access to the questioned
documents and paucity of standards. These limitations and
restrictions are sometimes intentional. The document examiner cannot
know what to make of pleas to carry out a restricted examination.
Providers of the service in Australia include us (don’t forget us!), Chris Anderson, Paul Westwood & Michelle Novotny, Neil Holland, Gary Storey, John Heath, John Gregory, Bryan Found and John Ganas. Questioned Document Unit and Mike Talbot-Wilson have no business connection with any of the latter providers.
I will elaborate here on questions of line quality, pressure
variation and stroke direction, and
Haack’s more
so
in evidentiary document examination. And on hypothesis
invention. And the comparison of evidentiary document examination as
science with something like blood-alcohol analysis as science. With
luck or God willing this paragraph will eventually be intelligible.
This site will provide database lookup allowing you to locate private sector document examiners who are members of the Australasian Society of Forensic Document Examiners Incorporated.