Guide in QuestionedDocuments
Guide in QuestionedDocuments
Guide in QuestionedDocuments
Document Examination
Introduction
An
abundance
of
crucial
information
can
be
gleaned
from
documents
related
to
a
criminal
or
civil
case.
The
suicide
note
found
next
to
the
deceased—was
it
actually
written
by
a
killer
trying
to
cover
up
his
crime?
The
bank
robber’s
hold-‐up
note—does
it
contain
invisible
impressions
that
indicate
the
address
of
the
hideout?
The
will
of
a
wealthy
person—was
it
altered
so
a
relative
could
receive
a
windfall?
The
discipline
of
forensic
document
examination,
often
referred
to
as
“questioned
documents,”
is
frequently
associated
with
white-‐collar
crimes
such
as
check
fraud;
however,
in
practice,
this
area
of
forensic
science
can
be
used
in
a
wide
array
of
cases
from
medical
malpractice
to
art
forgeries
to
homicides.
The
digital
age
has
made
the
work
of
forensic
document
examiners
even
more
important.
With
the
availability
of
powerful
software
programs
such
as
Adobe®
Photoshop®,
Acrobat®
and
others,
it
has
become
significantly
easier
for
criminals
to
create
and
manipulate
all
manner
of
fraudulent
documents
from
contracts
to
currency.
Computer
databases
maintained
by
the
U.S.
Secret
Service,
German
Federal
Police
and
Federal
Bureau
of
Investigation
contain
handwriting
samples
from
hundreds
of
thousands
of
writers.
Comparisons
of
these
databases
have
not
identified
two
individuals
who
have
the
exact
same
combination
of
handwriting
characteristics,
adding
to
the
authenticity
of
handwriting
as
a
solid
form
of
evidence.
• forgeries
• kidnappings
• counterfeiting
• extortion
• identity
theft
• stalking
• fraud
• contested
wills
• suicides
• contested
contracts
• homicides
• medical
malpractice
• bank
robberies
• title/deed
lawsuits
Forensic
document
examiners
are
most
frequently
asked
to
resolve
questions
of
authorship.
Is
the
signature
on
the
mortgage
loan
genuine?
Who
wrote
the
anonymous
note?
Did
the
deceased
sign
the
will?
By
comparing
documents
found
at
a
crime
scene
to
a
suspect’s
known
writing
samples,
the
forensic
document
examiner
can
help
confirm
who
wrote
the
note
and
include
or
exclude
suspects
from
the
investigation.
Fraudulent
Checks
A
common
problem
brought
to
forensic
document
examiners
involves
alterations,
especially
to
legal
documents.
For
instance,
if
someone
altered
a
check
to
increase
its
amount,
examiners
may
be
able
to
determine
this
by
comparing
the
way
the
inks
from
different
pens
react
when
subjected
to
infrared
radiation.
In
the
example
below,
a
check
made
out
to
“Cash”
for
$1,000
has
been
altered
by
changing
the
“1”
to
a
“9”
and
adding
a
recipient’s
name.
Although
the
black
inks
appear
the
same
in
visible
light,
when
subjected
to
certain
frequencies
of
infrared
light,
the
ink
used
to
prepare
the
genuine
check
reacts
differently
than
the
ink
used
to
alter
the
check,
making
the
alteration
obvious.
Altered
check
written
in
black
ballpoint
pens
when
viewed
with
visible
light
(Courtesy
of
Marie
Durina)
Same altered check viewed with infrared radiation (Courtesy of Marie Durina)
Documents
in
a
suspect’s
possession
may
also
reveal
clues
from
hidden
impression
evidence
(also
known
as
indented
writing)
that
could
link
a
suspect
to
a
crime.
For
instance,
did
the
bank
robbery
suspect
write
the
hold-‐up
note
on
top
of
another
piece
of
paper
that
now
contains
impression
of
that
text?
A notebook found with suspect’s personal effects. (Courtesy of Marie Durina)
The
same
notebook
when
analyzed
with
an
Electrostatic
Detection
Device
(EDD)
reveals
invisible
impressions
of
the
robbery
demand
note.
(Courtesy
of
Marie
Durina)
Examiners
can
also
identify
the
materials,
inks
and
even
the
type
of
office
equipment
or
writing
implements
used
to
produce
the
document.
This
is
especially
useful
in
fraud
cases
because
these
details
can
identify
the
time
frame
in
which
a
document
was
created.
For
instance,
if
analysis
of
the
document’s
paper
reveals
a
substance
that
was
not
used
in
paper
manufacturing
during
the
time
frame
in
question,
the
document,
piece
of
art,
or
historical
record
would
be
demonstrated
to
be
fraudulent.
In
cases
involving
handwriting,
samples
are
usually
divided
into
two
types:
requested
writing
specimens
and
collected
writing
specimens.
Requested
specimens
are
writings
dictated
by
the
investigator
to
the
writer.
These
specimens
are
created
under
carefully
controlled
conditions,
with
the
writer
being
closely
monitored.
Collected
writing
specimens,
however,
are
writings
that
were
completed
by
the
subject
prior
to
the
investigation.
Good
sources
of
writing
specimens
may
include
items
such
as
cancelled
checks,
letters,
diaries,
signed
receipts,
medical
records,
real
estate
contracts,
tax
records
or
other
signed
legal
documents.
The
techniques
and
tools
used
in
forensic
document
examinations
leverage
well-‐established
principles
of
physics
and
chemistry.
A
typical
Questioned
Documents
unit
in
a
crime
laboratory
is
equipped
with
microscopes,
digital
imaging
instrumentation,
infrared
and
ultraviolet
light
sources,
video
analysis
tools
and
specialized
equipment
including
electrostatic
detection
devices
(EDD)
and
materials
to
perform
analytical
chemistry.
For
analyses
of
documents
created
by
typewriters,
fax
machines,
or
printers,
examiners
may
rely
on
various
databases
created
for
comparison
purposes.
During
handwriting
analyses,
examiners
compare
samples
provided
from
particular
populations.
Certain
agencies,
such
as
the
U.S.
Secret
Service
and
the
German
Federal
Police,
maintain
larger
databases.
For
example,
the
Forensic
Information
System
for
Handwriting
(FISH)
maintained
by
the
U.S.
Secret
Service
Forensic
Laboratory
contains
handwriting
samples
from
tens
of
thousands
of
writers.
Using
this
technique,
indented
impressions
have
been
recovered
from
up
to
seven
layers
of
paper
beneath
the
original
writings.
Research
has
demonstrated
that
impressions
can
be
successfully
visualized
from
documents
up
to
60
years
old,
provided
the
papers
are
not
mishandled
or
stored
improperly.
Obliterated
note
viewed
with
visible
light.
(Courtesy
of
Marie
Durina)
Same note viewed with infrared radiation. (Courtesy of Marie Durina)
To
illustrate
the
value
of
a
manufacturer’s
mark,
consider
a
1989
case
when
a
young
girl
was
kidnapped
and
murdered.
Investigators
called
in
forensic
document
examiners
to
examine
the
plastic
garbage
bag
in
which
the
victim
was
found.
Minute
markings
created
by
the
heat-‐seal
process
used
in
manufacturing
such
bags
enabled
investigators
to
determine
that
the
bag
was
manufactured
on
the
same
machine
within
seconds
of
other
bags
found
in
the
parents’
house.
This
was
key
evidence
that
resulted
in
the
conviction
of
the
girl’s
mother
for
murder.
(Source:
W ORLD
O F
F ORENSIC
S CIENCE,
©2006
Gale
Cengage.)
For
example,
one
person
may
form
the
letter
“O”
in
a
clockwise
motion,
while
another
may
form
the
same
letter
in
a
counter-‐clockwise
motion.
A
particular
writer
may
form
the
letter
“M”
using
an
upward-‐moving
“arch”
formation
(similar
to
the
McDonald’s
Restaurant
sign),
while
another
prefers
to
make
a
“garland”
form
of
“M”,
forming
this
letter
with
a
“U”
motion
to
resemble
the
garland
on
a
Christmas
tree.
Document
examiners
take
into
account
the
various
combinations
of
features
present
within
the
writing
sample
as
a
whole.
In
addition,
examiners
look
for
features
such
as
hesitations
in
the
natural
flow
of
writing,
possible
retouching
or
unnatural
tremors.
These
may
indicate
that
an
unnatural
writing
process
(e.g.,
simulation
or
disguise)
has
been
employed.
No
one
writes
with
machine-‐like
precision
every
time,
and
variations
are
evident
in
a
person’s
handwriting
even
within
the
same
document.
For
example,
if
a
person
writes
an
entire
page
of
signatures,
each
one
will
vary
slightly.
A
trained
forensic
document
examiner
can
discriminate
between
natural
variations
in
a
writer’s
own
handwriting
and
significant
differences
denoting
different
writers.
The
investigator
should
also
attempt
to
obtain
known
writing
that
is
prepared
around
the
same
time
period
as
the
questioned
writing.
This
is
particularly
important
in
cases
involving
writing
from
young
people
(up
to
mid-‐teens),
as
writing
formation
may
still
be
at
a
developmental
stage,
and
by
elderly
persons,
as
writing
may
deteriorate
with
age
or
illness.
FAQs
What
kind
of
results
should
be
expected
from
a
forensic
document
examination?
Results
obtained
often
depend
upon
the
quality
and
quantity
of
the
evidence
submitted.
If
a
sufficient
amount
of
evidence
is
submitted,
an
examiner
will
reach
a
conclusion
that
may
range
from
identification
(a
definitive
determination
of
authorship
or
source)
to
elimination
(a
definitive
determination
of
non-‐authorship
or
from
another
source).
If
no
determination
can
be
made
based
on
the
evidence,
the
examiner
will
issue
an
inconclusive
result.
Most
laboratories
also
permit
a
broader
range
of
conclusions,
called
qualified
conclusions,
that
fall
somewhere
in
between
the
definitive
conclusions
of
identification
or
elimination.
Many
practitioners
also
choose
to
provide
a
defining
description
of
the
results
of
their
examination.
For
instance,
for
a
handwriting
exam,
an
identification
may
be
phrased,
“The
evidence
very
strongly
supports
the
proposition
that
the
questioned
writing
was
written
by
the
writer
of
the
specimens.”
Insufficient
quantity
of
questioned
material.
If
there
is
not
enough
material
for
an
adequate
examination,
the
examiner
will
most
likely
be
unable
to
render
a
definitive
conclusion.
Insufficient
quality.
If
the
quality
of
either
the
questioned
document
or
the
known
samples
is
not
sufficient
for
proper
examination,
the
examiner
will
likely
be
unable
to
render
a
definitive
conclusion.
Examples
include
documents
that
have
been
burned
to
ashes
or
cross-‐cut
shredded,
documents
that
are
multi-‐generation
copies
or
faxes,
or
documents
containing
writing
that
is
too
distorted
or
disguised
(as
discussed
below).
Distortion
or
disguised
writing.
The
writing
on
the
questioned
document
or
the
known
sample
may
be
too
distorted
or
disguised.
For
example,
graffiti
on
a
wall
may
be
considered
distorted
and
cannot
be
compared
to
a
suspect’s
normal
handwriting.
Some
of
the
examinations
conducted
in
this
forensic
discipline
are
handled
by
private
contractors,
who
should
employ
similar
quality
assurance
techniques.
The
format
of
reports
is
greatly
influenced
by
where
the
document
examiner
is
employed.
Private
practitioners
have
more
freedom
to
choose
their
own
formats
and
have
greater
flexibility
in
tailoring
their
reports
to
fit
the
case
at
hand.
Government
agency
examiners,
on
the
other
hand,
may
be
bound
by
their
employer’s
procedures
or
policies.
Common Terms
Understanding
the
common
terminology
used
in
questioned
document
examination
is
key
to
interpreting
the
examination
results
and
testimony
from
expert
witnesses.
Contemporaneous
Writing
−
Material
that
is
written
around
the
same
time
period
as
the
document
in
question.
Distorted
Writing
−
Writing
that
appears
not
naturally
executed,
either
as
a
result
of
voluntary
effort
such
as
in
disguised
writing,
or
as
a
result
of
involuntary
factors
such
as
physical
illness
or
writing
surface.
Forensic
Document
Examiner
(FDE)
−
One
who
studies
the
details
and
elements
of
documents
in
order
to
identify
their
source
or
determine
their
authenticity.
Also
known
as
an
“FDE”
or
“document
examiner”.
Indented
Impressions
−
The
depressed
area
on
the
surface
of
a
document
that
was
created
by
the
pressure
of
writing
or
a
mechanical
means
of
printing.
Resources
Scientific
Working
Group
for
Forensic
Document
Examination
(SWGDOC)
http://www.swgdoc.org/
References
ASTM
Standard
E444,
2009,
“Standard
Guide
for
Scope
of
Work
of
Forensic
Document
Examiners,”
ASTM
International,
West
Conshohocken,
PA,
2009,
DOI:
10.1520/E0444-‐09.
Kam,
M.;
Westein,
J.;
Conn,
R.
Proficiency
of
professional
document
examiners
in
writer
identification.
J.
F ORENSIC
S CI.
1994,39,
pp.
5–14.
Kam,
M.;
Feilding,
G.;
Conn,
R.
Writer
identification
by
professional
document
examiners.
J.
F ORENSIC
S CI.
1997,
42,
pp.
778–786.
Kam,
M.;
Feilding,
G.;
Conn,
R.
The
effects
of
monetary
incentives
of
document
examination
by
non-‐professionals.
J.
F ORENSIC
S CI.
1998,
43,
pp.
1000–1004.
Kam,
M.;
Gummadidala,
K.;
Feilding,
G.;
Conn,
R.
Signature
authentication
by
forensic
document
examiners.
J.
F ORENSIC
S CI.
2001,
46,
pp.
884–888.
Kam,
M.;
Lin,
E.
Writer
identification
using
handprinted
and
non-‐
handprinted
questioned
documents.
J.
F ORENSIC
S CI.
2003,
48,
pp.
1391–
1395.
Robert
E.
Pettus,
Appellant
v.
United
States,
Appellee.
Opinion.
District
of
Columbia
court
of
Appeals
No.
08-‐CF-‐1361.
Appeal
from
the
Superior
Court
of
the
District
of
Columbia
(FEL-‐5721-‐04)
Sita,
J.;
Found,
B.;
Rogers,
D.
K.
Forensic
Hand-‐Writing
Examiners’
Expertise
for
Signature
Comparison.
J.
F ORENSIC
S CI.
2002,
47,
pp.
11–17.
Srihari,
S.;
Cha,
S.H.;
Lee,
S.
Individuality
of
Handwriting,
J.
F ORENSIC
S CI.
2002,
47,
pp.
856–9722.
Srihari,
S.;
Huang,
C.;
Srinivasan,
H.
On
the
Discriminability
of
the
Handwriting
of
Twins.
J.
F ORENSIC
S CI.
2008,
53,
pp.
430–446.
Tanaka,
TA.
An
Evaluation
of
the
Methods
for
Optimal
Development
of
Indented
Writing
as
Suggested
by
the
Seward
Method.
Presented
at
the
American
Society
of
Questioned
Document
Examiners
Annual
Meeting,
Ottawa,
Ontario,
2000.
Acknowledgments
The
authors
wish
to
thank
the
following
for
their
invaluable
contributions
to
this
forensic
guide:
Forensic Evidence Admissibility and
Expert Witnesses
How
or
why
some
scientific
evidence
or
expert
witnesses
are
allowed
to
be
presented
in
court
and
some
are
not
can
be
confusing
to
the
casual
observer
or
a
layperson
reading
about
a
case
in
the
media.
However,
there
is
significant
precedent
that
guides
the
way
these
decisions
are
made.
Our
discussion
here
will
briefly
outline
the
three
major
sources
that
currently
guide
evidence
and
testimony
admissibility.
Just
when
a
scientific
principle
or
discovery
crosses
the
line
between
the
experimental
and
demonstrable
stages
is
difficult
to
define.
Somewhere
in
this
twilight
zone
the
evidential
force
of
the
principle
must
be
recognized,
and
while
the
courts
will
go
a
long
way
in
admitting
experimental
testimony
deduced
from
a
well-‐recognized
scientific
principle
or
discovery,
the
thing
from
which
the
deduction
is
made
must
be
sufficiently
established
to
have
gained
general
acceptance
in
the
particular
field
in
which
it
belongs.
Essentially,
to
apply
the
“Frye
Standard”
a
court
had
to
decide
if
the
procedure,
technique
or
principles
in
question
were
generally
accepted
by
a
meaningful
proportion
of
the
relevant
scientific
community.
This
standard
prevailed
in
the
federal
courts
and
some
states
for
many
years.
a. the
expert’s
scientific,
technical,
or
other
specialized
knowledge
will
help
the
trier
of
fact
to
understand
the
evidence
or
to
determine
a
fact
in
issue;
b. the
testimony
is
based
on
sufficient
facts
or
data;
c. the
testimony
is
the
product
of
reliable
principles
and
methods;
and
d. the
expert
has
reliably
applied
the
principles
and
methods
to
the
facts
of
the
case.
While
the
states
are
allowed
to
adopt
their
own
rules,
most
have
adopted
or
modified
the
Federal
rules,
including
those
covering
expert
testimony.
In
a
1993
case,
Daubert
v.
Merrell
Dow
Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.,
the
United
States
Supreme
Court
held
that
the
Federal
Rules
of
Evidence,
and
in
particular
Fed.
R.
Evid.
702,
superseded
Frye’s
"general
acceptance"
test.
In
deciding
if
the
science
and
the
expert
in
question
should
be
permitted,
the
judge
should
consider:
• What
is
the
basic
theory
and
has
it
been
tested?
• Are
there
standards
controlling
the
technique?
• Has
the
theory
or
technique
been
subjected
to
peer
review
and
publication?
• What
is
the
known
or
potential
error
rate?
• Is
there
general
acceptance
of
the
theory?
• Has
the
expert
adequately
accounted
for
alternative
explanations?
• Has
the
expert
unjustifiably
extrapolated
from
an
accepted
premise
to
an
unfounded
conclusion?
The
Daubert
Court
also
observed
that
concerns
over
shaky
evidence
could
be
handled
through
vigorous
cross-‐examination,
presentation
of
contrary
evidence
and
careful
instruction
on
the
burden
of
proof.
[2]
The
“Daubert
Trilogy”
of
cases
is:
D AUBERT
V .
M ERRELL
D OW
P HARMACEUTICALS ,
G ENERAL
E LECTRIC
C O .
V .
J OINER
and
K UMHO
T IRE
C O .
V .
C ARMICHAEL .
In
many
states,
scientific
expert
testimony
is
now
subject
to
this
Daubert
standard.
But
some
states
still
use
a
modification
of
the
Frye
standard.
Who
can
serve
as
an
expert
forensic
science
witness
at
court?
Over
the
years,
evidence
presented
at
trial
has
grown
increasingly
difficult
for
the
average
juror
to
understand.
By
calling
on
an
expert
witness
who
can
discuss
complex
evidence
or
testing
in
an
easy-‐to-‐understand
manner,
trial
lawyers
can
better
present
their
cases
and
jurors
can
be
better
equipped
to
weigh
the
evidence.
But
this
brings
up
additional
difficult
questions.
How
does
the
court
define
whether
a
person
is
an
expert?
What
qualifications
must
they
meet
to
provide
their
opinion
in
a
court
of
law?
These
questions,
too,
are
addressed
in
Fed.
R.
Evid.
702.
It
only
allows
experts
“qualified
…
by
knowledge,
skill,
experience,
training,
or
education.“
To
be
considered
a
true
expert
in
any
field
generally
requires
a
significant
level
of
training
and
experience.
The
various
forensic
disciplines
follow
different
training
plans,
but
most
include
in-‐house
training,
assessments
and
practical
exams,
and
continuing
education.
Oral
presentation
practice,
including
moot
court
experience
(simulated
courtroom
proceeding),
is
very
helpful
in
preparing
examiners
for
questioning
in
a
trial.
Normally,
the
individual
that
issued
the
laboratory
report
would
serve
as
the
expert
at
court.
By
issuing
a
report,
that
individual
takes
responsibility
for
the
analysis.
This
person
could
be
a
supervisor
or
technical
leader,
but
doesn’t
necessarily
need
to
be
the
one
who
did
the
analysis.
The
opposition
may
also
call
in
experts
to
refute
this
testimony,
and
both
witnesses
are
subject
to
the
standard
in
use
by
that
court
(Frye,
Daubert,
Fed.
R.
Evid
702)
regarding
their
expertise.
Each
court
can
accept
any
person
as
an
expert,
and
there
have
been
instances
where
individuals
who
lack
proper
training
and
background
have
been
declared
experts.
When
necessary,
the
opponent
can
question
potential
witnesses
in
an
attempt
to
show
that
they
do
not
have
applicable
expertise
and
are
not
qualified
to
testify
on
the
topic.
The
admissibility
decision
is
left
to
the
judge.
Additional Resources
Publications:
Acknowledgements
The
authors
wish
to
thank
the
following
for
their
invaluable
contributions
to
this
guide: