[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

with preprinted numbers and six entries dated 2/12/97 in the register next to
the numbers 100 through 105. The book and register are initialed and dated
RNM/3/3/98. Each individual entry is assigned a “Q” number as follows:
check no. 100, Q-8; check no. 101, Q-9; etc.
5. Q-15. One driver’s license no. 123456 in the name of John R. Smith, initialed
and dated RNM/3/3/98 and identified with the number Q-15.
6. Q-16. One driver’s license no. 123456 in the name of John R. Smith, initialed
and dated RNM/3/3/98 and identified with the number Q-16.
7. S-1. Twenty-five specimen handwriting forms numbered 1 through 25, signed
John R. Smith, witnessed by HKD, and dated 3/9/98.
The initials and date referred to on each item should be those of the investigator when
he inventoried the evidence at the crime scene or interviewed the suspect and ob-
tained the handwriting samples. The examiner must also initial and date each item
when he conducts his examination in the laboratory. Documents Q-15 and Q-16 both
contain the same identifying information but have different people shown in the
photograph on each card. One of the documents, let us say Q-15, belonged to the
victim in this case. The next part of the work request should specify just what
examinations the investigator wants done with the evidence.
Examinations Desired
1. Determine whether Exhibits Q-1, Q-2, Q-15, and Q-16 are counterfeit.
2. Determine whether Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2 were embossed on the same em-
bossing machine.
3. Determine whether the magnetic stripes on Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2 are en-
coded, what information is encoded on each stripe, and whether they were
encoded on the same or similar encoders.
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
4. Determine whether the author of the specimen writing described as S-1 wrote
the questioned signatures on Exhibits Q-1 and Q-2, all of the handwriting on
the face and endorsement on the back of Exhibits Q-3 through Q-8, the six
entries on the register (Exhibits Q-9 through Q-14), and the signatures on Q-
15 and Q-16.
What critical information remains for the examiner to know? When does the inves-
tigator need the results and a written report? Such information should go in a
“Remarks” section of the work request. The Questioned Document Examiner receiv-
ing this case will need about one week to conduct the examinations described above,
evaluate his findings, meet ASCLAD requirements, and report the results of his work
to the investigator.
What Results Should the Investigator Expect?
He should expect a clearly written report from the examiner describing the items
examined, the examinations conducted on each item, and the result of each exami-
nation. A sample work request is described above. The basic elements of that docu-
ment should also appear in the report. Next is a discussion of the examiner’s report
to the investigator and return of the evidence to him.
Elements of a Forensic Report
At the conclusion of an examination, the examiner must produce a clearly written
report that describes:
1. Documents examined
2. Examinations requested
3. Results of the examinations
4. Disposition of the submitted documents
5. Other relevant remarks
The outline of the report in some ways mirrors the format of the work request
submitted by the investigator. If the submitted items are described accurately on the
work request, the examiner can use the same number designation and description of
each item in his report. If he does this, there is less confusion between the investigator
and him concerning the submitted items.
As with all of his cases, the examiner uses language to inform the recipient of the
report about the results of his examinations. Because language is not always precise,
the same words can have different, or slightly different, actual or semantical meanings
to the reader. Some examiners use a number of qualifying words and phrases in the
same sentence. For example, it is possible that the writer of the S-1 specimens could
have written the questioned signature. Which is it … he probably wrote it or he could
have written it? The words or phrases chosen may not convey a clear understanding
© 2000 by CRC Press LLC
of the degree of belief the examiner reached as a result of his work. Other examiners
use brief statements with few qualifying words and phrases. To assist the recipient of
a handwriting/hand-printing report in understanding the language used and con-
cepts behind the language, the writer may attach a brief description of the language
and its meaning in the report.
The following examples represent brief and clearly written statements used to
express the degree of belief the examiner has based upon the result of his examination:
1. “It has been concluded that John Doe wrote…”
2. “It has been concluded that John Doe in all probability wrote…” (at times, the
phrase “in all probability wrote” may be substituted with “very probably
wrote” or “it is highly probable that John Doe wrote”)
3. “It has been concluded that John Doe probably wrote…”
4. “There is some evidence to suggest, or to indicate, that John Doe wrote…”
5. “It could not be determined whether John Doe wrote the questioned mate-
rial.”
6. “With the material available for comparison, no evidence was found to sug-
gest that John Doe wrote…”
7. “There is some evidence to suggest, or to indicate, that John Doe did not
write…”
8. “It has been concluded that John Doe probably did not write…”
9. “It has been concluded that in all probability John Doe did not write…” (the
same terms “very probably” or “it is highly probable” may also be used to
replace “in all probability”)
10. “It has been concluded that John Doe did not write…”
Defining Terms
What do these statements mean? How should the reader interpret or understand [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]