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.”

The examination of questioned documents may be hampered or limited by the following factors:

Non-original evidence (such as photocopies or faxes) submitted for examination. Every time a document is subjected to a copying process, a small amount of information is lost. Original documents may bear defects, flaws or characteristics that are not reproduced in a copy. Multi-generational copies (i.e., copies of copies) may be of insufficient quality for examination and comparison. It may even result in the examiner being unable to render a conclusion.

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).

Insufficient known specimens submitted for comparison. This refers to situations where there is not enough known writing, or the samples are inadequate, poor-quality or machine-printed and not suitable for comparison.

Lack of comparability between the questioned documents and the known samples. The examiner must be able to compare “apples to apples” as the saying goes. For instance, the specimen material must be of the same type of writing as the questioned material; uppercase entries can only be compared to uppercase, and cursive writing can only be compared to cursive writing. An examiner cannot determine the counterfeiting process by looking at only a photocopy of the suspected counterfeit. Likewise, the examiner cannot determine if an identification card is fraudulent unless a known standard is also submitted for comparison.

Lack of contemporaneous writings submitted for comparison. It is important to obtain known writing that is prepared around the same time frame as the questioned writing.

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.

To ensure the most accurate analysis of evidence, the management of forensic laboratories puts in place policies and procedures that govern facilities and equipment, methods and procedures, as well as analyst qualifications and training. Depending on the state in which it operates, a crime laboratory may be required to achieve accreditation to verify that it meets established quality standards. There are two internationally recognized accrediting programs focused on forensic laboratories: The American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors Laboratory Accreditation Board and ANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board / FQS.

In disciplines such as forensic document examination, where testing requires analysts to compare specific details of two samples, quality control is achieved through technical review. This involves an expert or peer who reviews the test data, methodology and results to validate or refute the outcome. The Scientific Working Group on Document Examination (SWGDOC) works to set quality guidelines for document examinations. These standards provide good practice for analysts.

Some of the examinations conducted in this forensic discipline are handled by private contractors, who should employ similar quality assurance techniques.

At a minimum, all reports should include a detailed description of the evidence submitted for analysis, the examinations performed by the examiner, and the results of the examination. An explanation of the reasons for the examiner’s conclusions, or any limitations, may also be included. In addition to the final reports, work notes are also maintained as part of the case file, and are subject to discovery by the courts. These may include photographic images or photocopies of the evidence submitted, work charts and sketches, communication logs and chain of custody documentation.

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.

Forensic document examiners do not make any determination of the psychological state or personality of a suspect from their handwriting. This is a controversial practice conducted by a handwriting analyst or “graphologist” who is not associated with the practice of forensic document examination.