Welcome to

Document Sample
Welcome to
Shared by: hedumpsitacross
Stats
views:
188
posted:
7/26/2009
language:
English
pages:
25
Welcome to the Tarrant

County Medical

Examiners Seminar

December 2007

LINDA JAMES, B.C.D.E., Diplomate

Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

Linda James, B.C.D.E., Diplomate

Statement of Qualifications

EDUCATION & TRAINING

National Association of Document Examiners: Board Certified Document Examiner, Re-certified 01/01/06

National Questioned Document Association Forensic Document Examination Course, 264 Study Hours

Apprenticeship/Hands-on Internship: Microscopes/Photography/Court Exhibits/Fax Machines/Printers/Copiers Typewriter/Ink Pens/Paper/Document

Cases/Court/Procedures/Preparation/Testifying, over 200 Technical Hours

National Questioned Document Association: Certified Document Examiner, 315 Study Hours.

College Notre-Dame-de-Foy, Canada: Introduction to Document Examination Equipmen/45 Hrs/3 College Credits

American Institute of Applied Science: Police Photography, Questioned Documents

American Institute of Applied Science: Forensic Science, 230 Study Hours/6 College Credits/Burlington County

North Central Texas Council of Governments: Regional Police Academy Basic Instructor Course, 40 Hours

Total of 23 College Credits Earned and Applied Toward an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice

INSTRUCTOR

State Licensed Instructor, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education

Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies/Association of Certified Fraud Examiners

First Instructor/National Questioned Document Association Document Examination Course, 1992 - 1997

GIVEN AUTHORIZATION TO USE COURSE MATERIALS FOR INSTRUCTION

American Institute of Applied Science/Questioned Document Section

PUBLICATIONS

2001: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/Examination of Faxed Documents

1999: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/Document Manipulation

1996: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/The Silent Witness

BOARD POSITIONS

2007: 1st Vice President of the National Association of Document Examiners

2001-07: Certification Committee of the National Association of Document Examiners

2000-05: Board of Director, By-Laws Chairman of the National Association of Document Examiners

2001-02: Secretary of the Association Certified Fraud Examiners, Dallas, Texas

1998-99: Associate Director of the Association Certified Fraud Examiners, Dallas, Texas

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS

Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, National Association of Document Examiners, Texas Division-Intl. Association for Identification, Forgery Investigator’s Association of Texas,

International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, International Association of Crime Analyst, American Society of

Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the Development of Forensic Science Standards. Forensic Sciences Section (E30) Voting Member, and Questioned Documents Section (E30.02)

Voting Member. Associate member of the Association of Forensic Document Examiners (AFDE).





Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

Linda James, B.C.D.E., Diplomate

Statement of Qualifications

OPINIONS GIVEN ON THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF CASES

Ink and Paper/Recovered Hidden Writing Death Threats/Famous signatures on paintings/books

Disputed Wills/Lease Agreements Self-inking Stamped Impressions

Forged Signatures/Contracts/Checks Typewriter - Alteration/Additions

Dating Documents, Photo Copies Medical Records & Documents/Indented writing

Stolen Credit Cards/Falsified Identity Cards Falsified Annuity Claims/Sequential Writing

International Case Involving Kidnapping Birth Certificates/Immigration Documents

Capital Murder Cases/Alleged Rape Cases Bank Signature Cards/Embezzlement/Diary Entries

Falsified Life Insurance Forms/Traced Signatures Falsified Land Title Company Forms/Divorce Papers

Stock Certificates/ Mail Fraud/Election Ballots Altered College Records/Tests/Holographic Wills

Threatening Notes/Anonymous Notes Laser Printing Removal/Toner Anchorage

Bankruptcy/IRS Documents/Warranty Deeds Bank Security Agreements/Miranda Rights

Adoption Papers/Disguised Writing Stolen U. S. Treasury Checks/Corporate Minutes

APPOINTMENTS

Dallas County Criminal District Court, United States District Court, Dallas Division, Bell County District

Court, Paris Texas County Criminal Court, Collin County Criminal Court, Practicum Supervisor/Prescott

College/Master of Arts Program.

PROFICIENCY TESTING

2005/3006/2007: Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. (Handwriting and Document Examination)









Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

Linda James, B.C.D.E., Diplomate

Statement of Qualifications

PRESENTATIONS

2007: Instruments Employed by Document Examiners – TCDLA 5th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX

2007: A Forensic Look At Medical Records AORN (Association of Peri Operative Registered Nurse), Plano, TX

2007: Principles in Forensic Document Examinations TALI’s Super Conference Irving, TX

2007: Identifying Graphic Patterns in Signatures-Poster Presentation Annual NADE Conference, Tucson , AZ

2006: What Can a Document Examiner Do? – TCDLA 4th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX

2006: Taking Proper Request Writing Samples TALI’s Southwest Super Conference San Antonio, TX

2006: The Field of Forensic Document Examination North Texas University Forensic Science Club Denton

2006: Forensic Document Examiner’s Lab and Cases - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX

2005: Cross Examining the Document Examiner – TCDLA 3rd Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX

2005: President Bush National Guard Documents and CBS, N.A.D.E., Quebec, Canada

2005: Business – Contract or Employment Workers for the Document Examiner, N.A.D.E., Quebec, Canada

2004: What is a Forensic Document Examiner? – Plano Kiwanis Club, Plano, Texas

2004: Science and Crime - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX

2004: Forensic Document Examination in the 21st Century - TCDLA 2nd Annual Forensics Seminar, Plano, TX

2003: Forensic Document &Handwriting Examinations - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX

2002: What is a Forensic Document Examiner? Rotary Club - Arlington Division

2001: Forensic Document Examination, AICPA National Conference, Dallas, Texas

2001: Unique Cases and Their Solutions, Insurance Fraud Education Conference, Orlando, Florida

2001: Unique Cases and Their Solutions, Annual N.A.D.E. Conference, Crawley, England

2000: Handwriting Analysis -Texas Association of College and University Auditors, Corpus Christi, TX

2000: Document and Handwriting Analysis - Association of Government Accountants, Dallas Chapter

2000: Scientific Document Examinations - Chapter of the ACFE, Ft. Worth

1999: Forensic Document & Handwriting Analysis - The Institute of Internal Auditors, Dallas Chapter

1999: Red Flags of Forgery - The Institute of Internal Auditors

1999: Questioned Documents & Forgery - North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington, Texas

1997: Forensic Document Techniques - Seminar Presentation to Investigators/Peers, Dallas, Texas

1997: Illustrating and Demonstrating Letters in Court - Annual Conference of N.Q.D.A., Dallas, Texas

1997: Signs of Forgery - Gateway Bank, Garland, Texas

1996: Scientific Document Examination: What It’s All About - ACFE, Dallas/Ft. Worth Chapter

1996: The Visible Effects of Speed in Handwriting - Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas

1996: Employees in the Document Examiners Office - Dallas, Texas

1995: How I Did It - Three Cases - Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas

1995: Faxes and Fraud - Annual National Association of Document Examiners Conference, San Antonio, Texas

1995: A Fingerprint in Time - Annual Conference of N.Q.D.A., Dallas, Texas

1995: Questioned Documents - Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas







Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

Linda James, B.C.D.E., Diplomate

Statement of Qualifications

CONTINUING EDUCATION

2007: TCDLA 5th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX

2007: Association of Forensic Document Examiners Symposium, Tucson, AZ

2007: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Tucson , AZ

2006: FIAT/IAFCI 2nd Annual Conference, Galveston, Texas

2006: 69th Annual Conference of the Texas Division of the International Association for Identification

2006: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, at Sea

2005: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Quebec, Canada

2004: FIAT Annual Conference TCLEOSE/Austin Police Department, Austin, Texas

2004: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Anaheim, California

2004: American Academy of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas

2003: National Questioned Document Association, New Orleans, Louisiana

2003: Cyber Crime and Terrorism, MetroPlex 2003, Dallas, Texas

2001: AICPA National Conference on Fraud & Litigation Services, Dallas, Texas

2001: 64th TIAI Annual Education Conference, Digital Photography, Bob May (FBI), Arlington, Texas

2001: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Crawley, England

2001: National Questioned Document Association Educational Conference, Dallas, Texas

2000: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico

2000: National Questioned Document Association Educational Conference, Dallas, Texas

1998: Deloitte & Touche, Cybercrime & Computer Forensics/FBI Special Agents, U.S. Attorney, CFE

1998: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Proving Fraud/ Master Peace Officer James D. Ratley

1998: Criminal Justice Training Manager, Don Rabon, ACFE Fraud Examiner’s Seminar, Dallas, TX

1998: Secret Service Trained Handwriting Examiner, Chief Deputy, Denton County, TX

1997: The Forgery Investigator’s Association of Texas, Georgetown, Texas

1997: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas

1996: National Association of Document Examiners, Baltimore, Maryland

1996: FBI Examiner, Larry Ziegler Professional Development Seminar/Court Testimony/, Maryland

1996: Statement Analysis, Interviewing, & Interrogation Seminar, Dallas, Texas

1996: ACJS Professional Development Seminar/Technocrimes/August Bequia, Las Vegas, Nevada

1996: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada

1996: American Academy of Forensic Sciences (48th Annual Meeting), Nashville, Tennessee

1995: National Association of Document Examiners, San Antonio, Texas

1995: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas

1995: Content Analysis Seminar, Dallas, Texas

1994: American Board of Forensic Examiners, Branson, Missouri

1994: National Questioned Document Association, Kansas City, Missouri

1992: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas

1991: National Questioned Document Association, Santa Fe, New Mexico

1990: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas







Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

Linda James, B.C.D.E., Diplomate

Statement of Qualifications

COURT EXPERIENCE: 1994 through 2007

Qualified under the Daubert/duPont guideline/Opinions Judicially accepted and admitted

2007: Texas Workforce Commission2002: Allen County in Fort Wayne, Indiana

2007: 160th Dallas County District Court, Texas2002: Dallas County Probate Court No. 3, Texas

2007: 121st Judicial District Court, Brownfield, Texas2002: 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas

2007: 7th Smith County District Court, Texas, D.A.2002: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas

2007: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Beaumont Division, TX2001: 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas

2007: 114th Smith County District Court, Texas, D.A. 2001: 27th St. Landry Parish, Louisiana (DA)

2007: 160th Dallas County District Court, Texas2001: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas

2007: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas2001: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District, Texas

2007: 297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2001: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas

2006: U.S. Navy General Court-Martial, Pensacola, FL2001: PUC Hearing Austin, Texas

2006: 18th Judicial District Court, Johnson County, TX 2001: 193rd Dallas County District Court, Texas

2006 Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas 2001: Hopkins County Court, Texas

2006:297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2001: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas

2006: 8th Judicial District Court/Colfax - Raton, NM2001: 19th East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana

2005: 422nd District of Kaufman County, TX2000: State Bar of Texas

2005: 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, TX2000: Singapore Subordinate Criminal Court

2005: Workers’ Compensation CCH, Mt. Pleasant, TX2000: 67th Tarrant County District Court, Texas

2005: 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County,TX2000: Denton County District Court, Texas

2005: 297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2000: Brazos County District Court, Texas

2005: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas1999: Walworth County, Wisconsin

2004: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas1999: Tarrant County JP Court, Texas

2004: NASD Arbitration, Dallas, Texas1999: Dallas County District Court, Texas

2004: U.S. District Court, District of Alaska1998: Dallas County District Court, Texas

2004: U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas1997: Tarrant County Court Number 2, Texas

2004: 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas1997: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas

2004: U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Texas1997: 236th Tarrant County District Court, Texas

2004: Albuquerque, N.M. 2nd Judicial District Court1997: Denton County Probate Court, Texas

2004: Dallas 134th District Court, Texas1997: McLennan County Court, Texas

2004: Texas Workforce Commission1996: NASD Arbitration Hearing, Dallas, Texas

2003: 59thJudicial District of Grayson County, Texas 1995: Dallas County Probate Court, Texas

2003: Tarrant County Probate Court #2, Texas1995: Hunt County District Court, Texas

2003: State Bar of Texas Disciplinary Counsel

2003: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas

2003: Morris County 76-276 District, Texas

2003: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas

1994: Bell County District Court, Texas2003: Dallas 195th Judicial District Court, Texas

1994: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Dallas Division, Texas

1994: Dallas County District Court, Texas

1994: U. S. District Court, Dallas Division, Texas



Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

OBJECTIVES

1. Handwriting Examination vs. Right to Privacy

2. Legal Status of Handwriting Evaluation

3. Handwriting is Brain Writing

4. The types of Non-Destructive Testing of Documents

5. Empirically testing the hypothesis

6. Four things that contribute to a reliable conclusion

7. Specialized training





Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

1. Handwriting Examination vs. Right to Privacy



 The legality of handwriting analysis has been established in court

decisions within the past ten years, relating to the national labor

relations act, the equal employment opportunity commission and

the Privacy Act of 1974.



“Handwriting is behavior in public and therefore (handwriting analysis) is not

an intrusion into privacy.” This was ruled in the cases of U.S. vs. Rosinsky,

547 F2ND 249 (CA 4TH 1977) and U.S. vs. Hazelwood School District, 534

F2ND 805 (CA 8TH MO 1976



 The university of California researched precedents where

handwriting analysis has been used in courts throughout the

nation as far back as 1881. some of this research can be found in

American Law Reports Annotated (103 A.L.R. Pages 900-901)



Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

2. Legal Status of Handwriting Evaluation



Handwriting examination has overcome challenges under 2 U.S. Constitutional

Amendments (4th and 5th Amendments)



 4th Amendment Rulings:

 U.S. vs. DOE (Handwriting is considered under property relationships re public

view

 U.S. vs. Katz (Handwriting has no protection for what a person knowingly

exposes to the public)

 U.S. vs. Mara -1973 (Handwriting is considered under property relationships re

public view)

 U.S. vs. Sydney W. Rosinsky -1977 (Handwriting considered under property

relationships re public view)



 5th Amendment Rulings:

 California vs. Gilbert -1967 (Production of handwriting exemplars)

 U.S. vs. Dianisio -1973 (Production of handwriting exemplars)



Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

3. Handwriting is Brain Writing



“The preconscious nature of writing. A term formulated

by Wilhelm Preyer, a professor of physiology at Jena,

Germany, in 1895 after experiments that led him to the

conclusion that handwriting is a centrally organized

function. He demonstrated that similar writing patterns

occurred when writing was executed by holding the

writing instrument in the right hand, the left hand, the

mouth, and the toes.”



Fundamentals of Document Examination, Edna W. Robertson









Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

4. The types of Non-Destructive Testing of Documents





 Combination of low magnification, examination

through colored filters to enhance contrast

 High contrast photography

 Infra-red and infra-red luminescence

examination using a video spectral comparator

device to enhance the image

 An examination of the indentations caused by

the writing instrument using low angle, or

oblique light techniques, or ESDA

Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

4. The types of Non-Destructive Testing of Documents cont.





The employment of appropriate instruments in order to make a

proper application so that the physical observations are accurate

and objective. I have all the equipment necessary for the

examination of documents. This consists primarily of various

measuring devices and typewriter grids for measuring

handwriting and typewriting and magnifiers of varying powers;

4-power, 8-power, and 10-power magnification is used most

often. If stronger magnification is necessary, a stereoscopic

microscope that can go up to 40-power can be used. In addition,

I have a light box (similar to what a doctor uses to view x-rays), a

35mm camera for taking photographs of original documents that

cannot be removed from certain facilities, and the ESDA

machine.



Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

5. Empirically testing the hypothesis



Webster defines scientific method as the following:





“Principles and procedures for the systematic

pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition

and formulation of a problem, the collection of

data through observation and experiment, and

the formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

Webster’s New Encyclopedia Dictionary (New York: B.D. & L. 1994)







Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

5. Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.



1. Pose a question

2. Collect evidence

3. Hypothesize

4. Deduce its implications

5. Test them experimentally

6. Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesis





Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

5. Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.



It has been written that what distinguishes scientific knowledge from other

knowledge is:



1. the method by which it is created or collected;

2. a systematic extension of common sense; and

3. sound skepticism, that when combined, is referred to as scientific method.



District judge D. I. McKenna, in his recent decision in U.S. vs. Roberta and

Eileen Starzecpyzel, 880 Fed. Sup. 1027, April 4, 1995, quotes the words of

Green in Expert Witness and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances

Litigation, 86 N. WU. L. Rev. 643, 645 (1992), who states:



“Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and

testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is

what distinguished science from other fields of human inquiry.”





Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

5. Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.

A. Sample case: 1st examination:



REQUEST:

 The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July of 1992 was produced in

1992.

 The document was made available for examination.

 Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1992.

EXAMINATION CONDUCTED:

 Copies were made on yellow paper of the subject document and the 1992 known documents in order

to take contemporary notes.

 Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light box, transparencies,

ESDA, MiScope, and microphotography.

CONTEMPORARY NOTES:

 The typewriting that was printed on the subject document was by a laser printer.

 The typewriting that was printed on the contemporary 1992 known documents was by a laser printer.

 Consistent stray dots were present on the document indicating a nick in the drum.

 The same pattern of stray dots were not found on other known original July of 1992 documents to

the subject document.

CONCLUSION:

 The document may not have been produced in 1992. Proceed to the next examination.









Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

5. Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.



A. Sample case: 2nd examination:



REQUEST:

 The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July of 1992 was produced in

1993.

 The document was made available for examination.

 Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1993.

EXAMINATION CONDUCTED:

 Copies were made on pastel green paper of the subject document and the 1993 known documents in

order to take contemporary notes.

 Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light box, transparencies,

ESDA, MiScope, and microphotography.

CONTEMPORARY NOTES:

 The typewriting that was printed on the subject document was by a laser printer.

 The typewriting that was printed on the contemporary 1993 known documents was by a laser printer.

 The consistent stray dots that were present on the 1992 document, indicating a nick in the drum,

were not found on the 1993 known original documents.

CONCLUSION:

 The document may not have been produced in 1993. Proceed to the next examination.









Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

5. Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.



A. Sample case: 3rd examination:



REQUEST:

 The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July of 1992 was produced in

1994.

 The document was made available for examination.

 Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1994.

EXAMINATION CONDUCTED:

 Copies were made on pastel blue paper of the subject document and the 1994 known documents in

order to take contemporary notes.

 Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light box, transparencies,

ESDA, MiScope, and microphotography.

CONTEMPORARY NOTES:

 The typewriting that was printed on the subject document was by a laser printer.

 The typewriting that was printed on the contemporary 1994 known documents was by a laser printer.

 The consistent stray dots that were present on the 1992 document, indicating a nick in the drum,

were found on the 1994 known original documents.

CONCLUSION:

 The document was produced in 1994.

 Question answered.







Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

6. Four things that contribute to a reliable conclusion





The following four things contribute to a reliable

conclusion for an expert’s opinion in forensic

document examination:

1. Physical observations are accurately and

objectively demonstrated.

2. The explanation of scientific theories is

reasonable and based on proper theory and

objective sources.

3. Crisp and impeccable logic is applied.

4. Precise definitions of terminology are used.

Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

7. Specialized training

 No college degree available at this time



 Only a certification for this field



 State approved curriculum



 Continuing education



 Misleading information about schools



 Certifying Bodies

Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

Best Evidence

 We are allowed to use “best evidence” when the original is not available.



Best Evidence:

Primary evidence, as distinguished from secondary; original, as distinguished from substitution;

the best and highest evidence of which the nature of the case is susceptible, not the highest or

strongest evidence which the nature of the thing to be proved admits of. The original of a written

instrument is itself always regarded as the primary or best possible evidence of its existence and

contents; a copy, or the recollection of a witness, would be secondary evidence. “Best evidence”

or “primary evidence” includes the best evidence which is available to a party and procurable

under the existing situation, and which in its nature suggests there is better evidence of the same

fact, is “secondary evidence”. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

Best Evidence Rule:

A rule which requires that best evidence available be presented in lieu of less satisfactory evidence.

People v. Banks, Colo. App., 655 P. 2d 1384, 1387. This rule prohibits the introduction into

evidence of secondary evidence unless it is shown that original document has been lost or

destroyed or is beyond jurisdiction of court without fault of the offering party; if original

document is lost, then secondary evidence is properly admissible. State v. Stephen, Mo. App., 556

S.W. 2d 722, 723. Fed.R.Evid. 1002 states the basic rule as follows: “To prove the content of a

writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph, is required,

except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.” ibid



Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

Best Evidence

Primary Evidence

Primary evidence means original or first hand evidence; the best evidence that the

nature of the case admits of; the evidence which is required in the first instance, and

which must fail before secondary evidence can be admitted. That evidence which the

nature of the case or question suggests as the proper means of ascertaining the truth. It

is the particular means of proof which is the most natural and satisfactory of which the

case admits, and includes the best evidence which is available to a party and procurable

under the existing situation, and all evidence falling short of such standard, and which

in its nature suggest there is better evidence of the same fact, is “secondary evidence”.

ibid



Secondary Evidence

That which is inferior to primary or best evidence. Thus, a copy of an instrument, or

oral evidence of its contents, is secondary evidence of the instrument and contents. It

is that species of evidence which becomes admissible, when the primary or best

evidence of the fact in question is lost or inaccessible; as when a witness details orally

the contents of an instrument which is lost or destroyed. ibid







Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

HANDWRITING OPINION TERMINOLOGY

identification (definite conclusion of identity)-This is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners

in handwriting comparisons.

strong probability (highly probable, very probable)-The evidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature or quality is

missing so that an identification is not in order; however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned

and known writings were written by the same individual.

probable-The evidence contained in the handwriting points rather strongly toward the questioned and known

writings having been written by the same individual; however, it falls short of the "virtually certain" degree of

confidence.

indications (evidence to suggest)-A body of writing has few features which are of significance for handwriting

comparison purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of writing.

no conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable)-This is the zero point of the confidence scale. It is used when there

are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned and/or known writing or a lack of

comparable writing, and the examiner - does not have even a leaning one way or another.

indications did not-This carries the same weight as the indications term above; that is, it is a very weak opinion.

probably did not-The evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings having been

written by the same individual, but, as in the probable range above, the evidence is not quite up to the

“virtually certain” range quite.

strong probability did not (highly probable did not, very probable did not) -This carries the same weight as strong

probability on the identification side of the scale; that is, there is a virtual certainty that the questioned and

known writings were not written by the same individual.

elimination-This, like the definite conclusion of identity, is the highest degree of confidence expressed by the

document examiner in handwriting comparison . By using this expression, the examiner denotes no doubt in

his opinion that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual.



Journal of Forensic Sciences, Letters to the Editor, March 1991





Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

What Can A Document Examiner Do?

 In addition to determining the authenticity of  What is earliest age that the document could have been

handwriting and signatures on questioned written?

documents, Document Examiners can identify the  When was the watermark first manufactured?

author of:  Has the paper been artificially aged by heat or by

chemicals?

 * forged writing * anonymous disguised writing

* graffiti.  What type of pen was used to create the document?

 Was it in existence when the document was purportedly

 Document Examiners can determine: written?

 If the document has been altered in any way.  What typewriter or printer was used to create a document?

 Has information been removed from a document?  Was the same typewriter used to create certain documents?

 What has been removed?  Was the document created by a printer connected to a

computer?

 Have parts of the document been obliterated?  What type of printer? Daisy wheel? Dot Matrix? Ink Jet? or

 What was written under cross-outs, black-outs or Laser?

white-outs?  Is a photocopy cut and paste?

 Has additional information been put on the  Has a genuine signature been affixed by taking it from a

document? genuine document?

 Have pages been substituted:  Has material been substituted on a page after it was signed?

 Is the document counterfeit?

 The sequence of information written or printed on  Is a document a desktop forgery?

a document.

 Was the document scanned into a computer, altered and

 Which writing is on top when two signatures are printed?

intermingled?  Other types of cases:

 How many different writers signed the document?  Embezzlement  Medical Malpractice 

Industrial Espionage  Bigamy

 Indented Writing Cases



Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC

ADVANCED DOCUMENT & HANDWRITING

EXAMINATION SERVICES, LLC



Linda James

would like to

THANK YOU

for attending her presentation for the

2007 Tarrant County Medical Examiners Seminar



Please contact Linda at lcj@document-examiner.com

for any questions you may have.

Advanced Document & Handwriting

Examination Services, LLC


Share This Document


Related docs
Other docs by hedumpsitacros...
Operazione “Protezione ottimale”
Views: 59  |  Downloads: 0
MOTOR STARTER PROTECTOR
Views: 36  |  Downloads: 3
CATALOGUE 2007 p1 . 162
Views: 95  |  Downloads: 0
MD-374.55-01.dgn
Views: 1  |  Downloads: 0
General
Views: 28  |  Downloads: 6
by registering with docstoc.com you agree to our
privacy policy

You are almost ready to download!

You are almost ready to download!