CRC Press Access Device Fraud and Related Financial Crimes

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

“There is no stronger opinion given by a document examiner in a handwriting case
than a positive identification.”20 When he uses this statement, the examiner has no
reservation whatsoever about the certainty of his conclusion. He is so certain of his
conclusion that for him it is a fact that the writer of the samples and questioned
material are the same person. Because he can only express an opinion in a court of
law, he is prohibited from testifying that it is a fact that the questioned and sample
writings are by the same writer. What is the standard for such a strong belief? Briefly
stated, there must be complete agreement in all features of writing important for
identification purposes with no significant differences or dissimilarities that would
suggest another writer is involved. Also, the writing must contain both class and
individual features which, when taken collectively, are in excellent agreement with no
significant or fundamental differences or dissimilarities in writing habits. However,
there are occasions when a difference or dissimilarity is observed, but its presence is
far outweighed by agreement in the significant features and must be concluded to be
the result of a variation in the writer’s writing.
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
The second statement is used when the evidence falls just short of the require-
ment for an identification. At times, the phrase “in all probability” may be substituted
with “very probably wrote” or “it is highly probable that John Doe wrote.” Regardless
of the words used, the examiner has some slight reservation or reason for not making
a categorical statement. Maybe there is the absence of one or even two features having
some significance. He may have a question about the quality of the writing which he
believes is important for identification and cannot be resolved with the available
writing. Regardless of the reason, he selects his language carefully, because it reflects
his belief based on his examination of the available evidence.
The third statement is used when the evidence points rather strongly toward the
writer of the sample, but still falls short of the requirements for the prior qualified
opinion. Even though there are significant similarities present between the ques-
tioned and sample writing, there are also irreconcilable differences that cannot be
explained with the available writing. These irreconcilable differences may have vary-
ing degrees of significance. For example, if the questioned or sample writing is a
photocopy and the examiner is not able to determine stroke direction or line quality
characteristics sufficiently, he might choose to express his degree of belief by using
this statement. If this statement is too strong, he may use some other more qualified
language to express his degree of belief. By way of example, the importance of
determining stroke direction or line quality for every feature may be outweighed by
the collective significance of other qualities and features present in the writing that are
equally, or more, important for identification purposes. Therefore, the examiner may
then choose to use this language. While there is, by definition, a greater likelihood of
someone else writing the questioned material than is expressed in the previous
opinion (the second statement), the evidence is still pointing rather strongly in the
direction of the specimen writer. Most people believe that when the word “probable”
is used, it means a 50% chance of some event occurring. That meaning does not apply
here. When the examiner uses this qualifier, he is saying that there is more evidence
to suggest the writer of the sample wrote the questioned material than there is to
suggest he did not write the questioned material. Probable has been defined as
“…having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief
but leaves some room for doubt.”21
The fourth statement is used when there are a few handwriting features in
agreement and some may have more significance for identification than others. The
examiner is saying to the reader of the report, “Keep this writer in mind.” Although
there is not a sufficient amount of evidence to say that the writer of the sample
probably wrote the questioned material, there are some writing features in agreement
which suggest he has the skill and ability to write it. However, the significance of those
features that do agree is limited.
The fifth statement is used when the examiner is not able to determine whether the
specimen writer wrote the questioned material. Before he begins his examination, the
examiner does not know whether or not the writers of the samples wrote the questioned
material. His position as an examiner must be neutral. The purpose of his examination
is to try to determine whether the writers wrote the questioned material. There are many
occasions when the examiner is not able to proceed any further than when he began his
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
examination. This usually occurs when there is no significant evidence for or against
identifying the writer of the samples as the writer of the questioned documents.
The same general principles apply to the degrees of belief expressing negative
opinions. In many cases, the evidence present varies in significance. It must be added
that an elimination opinion is harder to reach than an identification opinion. There
are technical reasons for this statement that go beyond the scope of this work and
therefore will not be covered here.
Regardless of the type of written report, it must clearly and accurately describe
the evidence examined, the work requested, the results of that work, and what
disposition was made of the evidence submitted for examination. The results of the
examination must be clearly written so the work that was done and the results of that
work are easily understood by the reader. The use of clearly written phrases, concepts, [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

pobieranie @ do ÂściÂągnięcia @ ebook @ download @ pdf