Message Board
Sign up Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 4      Prev   1   2   3   4   Next
TerryB

Registered:
Posts: 1,660
Reply with quote  #16 
Nanette, I've played with the 340 cipher and I've read up on how different ciphers are made, they are a very old technology that has been used by military people as well as gangs/organized crime and even legitimate merchants. Because the 340 cipher hasn't been cracked; many experts say it requires a key to solve, it may also contain more than one message when using two or more different keys. It may also read top to bottom instead of left to right. It could even be BS but it probably does contain one or more messages give the Zodiac killers previous work.
__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #17 
While I do not succumb to most peoples crap, I still give a fair chance for them to sway me, and if the evidence they present makes sense and is logical then I might hold some credence in what they have to say, but never all of what they have to say. Foundation is a huge starting point for my belief in you. You have to prove up what you are saying, and this means presenting supporting information.

So, for all those that would like to post here, I suggest that you bring picture evidence to the post to back your thoughts or theories when posting in the actual dated threads, and keep your thoughts and theories in the question and answer thread of the like crime spree. This will help to ensure that we keep the threads clean with little interference for people who want to read about a particular crime without all the BS in between. I will moderate and make changes as necessary, so do not be offended if I do not find credibility in your post as it is probably just in the wrong thread and could have been moved to the proper questions and answers one.

TerryB, I am not convinced of anything yet, and that is why I want to visit each of the crimes sprees in order. I have always maintained that JT should be considered for these crimes due to the match in handwriting and MO, not to mention that we are talking about a serial killer. I have always maintained that the Zodiac Killer did not wake up one day, kill for 11 months, and then never kill again. Nor did he learn to write with the degree of confidence he had without having gotten away with it in the past, and continue on into the future. I plan on displaying each significant characteristic of the handwriting involved with each and every crime as we go through them.


__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #18 
Nanette, I apologize, I didn't see that thread, I know this was something that you said you were gonna do a long time ago, I just didn't see the other thread. I support this structure and it seems like a very good idea.

I noticed the report document etc to Dennis Kaufman posted, that is also a very good idea. I would rather have seen you post things like that than stoop to his level in that recent fight with him, on the other hand I have to say that you did a good job of defending yourself despite his underhanded attacks.

For example; and I don't say this to bug you but rather to remind you that letting people assail your credibility unopposed is probably not good in the long run either. One of those people to say that to me was (redacted) 245/(redacted) Bennett of the JBR case fame in a PM, it bugged me that she rejected you out of hand as not being credible. I told her to not confuse you with DK. After a long time and study of the JBR case I am convinced that John Ramsey isn't really interested in finding the killer of his daughter. Bennett rejected the testimony of Nancy Krebs as being a fiction and she refused to acknowledge the fact that apparently Fleet White was very concerned with Krebs' statements. I suspect that a stalemate occurred with John Ramsey, perhaps it was simply political but I tend to think there is more to it than meets the eye. As you may know; Krebs named John Ramsey as one of her molesters. Part of me would like to "out" Bennett but part of me doesn't wanna burn any bridges either.

I really wanted to fight Bennett over this point but more groundwork would have been needed, things like getting your input etc. And it's like wrestling a greasy dirty pig too.

Once again, please accept my apology, it was late when I first read that thread and I was tired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by habituation
I did not delete them, I simply moved them to a thread called Liptstick Killer questions and answers. I would have hoped that you would have read the disclosure I made before jumping down my throat about it. I have maintained from the beginning that there will be a thread for facts and evidence, and a separate thread for questions, answers, and theories so there are easy to read threads on these crimes that are not broken by other peoples tangents. I am not speaking about you, but you know those that do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TerryB
Deleting my messages is not cool with me, it reflects on you, nobody is gonna continue to deal with you if you delete their stuff. You keep crazy catseye's stuff and delete mine?

I've tried to convey your handwriting work to other people and they come back at me with statements of you not being credible. My point is...is that that is some pretty condescending behavior by you. I went to bat for you against Kaufman. You may have studied the handwriting in these cases and your work is good but I've read everything I can about these cases and I know what I'm talking about when I make a statement.

I also proofread my posts, then later on I find all these errors?

__________________
One small bit of info might make all the difference.

 
 
Action:
  
 




I accept your apology, and would like to say that I find it very strange that big wigs like John Walsh, Tim Miller, John Ramsey, and the advocacy attorney for Bill Heirens(I will have to look up her name), do not seem inclined to get to the bottom of their loved one's murders. It almost seems as though they have received certain fame and money for not investigating thoroughly what they know to be significant evidence. I have these answers, and based on the information that I have posted just in regards to LK, that I know more than they would like me to do. I will continue to deliver such evidence to the dismay of many people, but when it comes down to the truth, I believe that many people have developed these measures to ensure the average person will have to spend millions of hours sorting out the truth from fiction. My point is that we are going to make these facts easily and readily available for those that can help to solve these crimes.

__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #19 
The Z writing is being examined as we speak, and I hope to have wonderful news very shortly. Cross your fingers for me if you really want to see this case closed. Either way, I will be honest about the 2nd opinion when it comes in.
__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #20 

OK, for the 2nd time this month I have been sent someone to buy my time, and while I thought it was a good case, it seems that I have been enlisted to waste my time. There is a new client who is talking about the KKK in Lubbic [sic] TX. To coincide with JT's birthplace. I have offered up my services due to patriotic virtues, but wonder now if this isn't just another goose chase to keep me from working on the truth. I just finished printing all the pictures and paperwork to expand this case today, and am wondering what my destiny is to face?


__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #21 
OK, my last post warrants an update. I have been diving a little deeper into what this man has been researching. It turns out that he has researched many things including the occult of Scientology, KKK, Kaballah, and many more. He has written a book on it and insists that I research Remote Mental Influence of Electrodermal Activity which is very similar I believe to remote viewing that was talked about in the special features of the movie Suspect 0(Zero) that Dennis had me watch, and hypnosis for hire that the CIA ran with on the guy that was arrested for RFK's murder, I cannot recall his name right now. He has a bachelor in psychology, and has been an ordained minister for over 8 years, and all this after retiring from the Air Force. He has been researching Ted Turner and Jane Fonda's involvement with Scientology in what he describes as the worst human rights violations ever. Evidently Scientology has been around for the most powerful and rich for a very long time, and they have even created their own government with it's own internal revenue service just for them. Ted Turner was on CNN where he claimed to have given the UN 1 billion dollars, but this guy believes that it went to the UNA-USA government of Scientology instead of the UN, and supposes that UN troops basically belong to Turner. It is an interesting concept to at least ponder...
__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #22 
TerryB, interestingly enough, I have always felt that the injection of people from AZ has always intrigued me to a point of "huh?"

1. My first experience with these characters was Stephen Dewhurst, professor at Arizona University, college AKA of the initial DNA recording of Anthrax, and definite testing facility in 1993. Dewhurst is also responsible per Dennis for single handedly unlawfully detaining his negatives of crimes which Dewhurst claims is due to a pertinent addition to the book he is writing based on the sale of those rights from Dennis for 50 some thousand dollars. This is the same time that Dennis found me, and why he said he had the money to pay me, but opted not to because he didn't feel I would do my job correctly...

2. That is asinine, but turned out to work in his favor because I was able to render my opinion without the approval of my mentor simply because Dennis had not paid me or engaged my services under my apprenticeship contract. Is that coincidental or what??? I think not... Dennis is lucky I am a honest person who regardless of paying thousands for training would take the chance of losing what I had contracted myself for regardless of what I might lose in the process to tell the truth about this case despite the threats I received. I never received any appreciation/compensation for this, and continued to work for Dennis for another 3 years!!!

3. Then Dr. D'Antonio, also a physician from Arizona who tried in all his might to convince me I was wrong about my findings, and not in such a professional manner. (I will post some of his email from 2009.) He is the one that found faces and initials of ALA in the letters which means that the originals must have ended up in AZ at some point before 2009 which is after TV's color scans to his website in 2004-05. These letters were never truly lost were they LE????

4. Then Chris Pickel Lemon of CBS 13 is also from a CBS affiliate where she originally got her job with them, and then transferred back here to her home town purportedly.... I just know that she claimed to have called Tim Miller on his lie between Dennis and I, and she told Dennis that Tim Miller told her I was lying. She also reported my mentor's opinion, without his knowledge of the evidence or reviewing my findings, following my identification of JT even though she was aware of the discrepancies between him and I. Almost to say she did not believe what she was reporting on to begin with...She also, called Dennis crying on more than one occasion in which I was present for one of these calls where she was literally crying and upset that the station would not allow her to report the story or use the entire footage she had collected... I ask, why did they allow the misuse of their camera man and equipment if she were not there to make it look like someone cared even though the story never made it out of the local area... 

5. I also forgot to add that JT worked as a security guard at AZ University during 1993 for 6 months, and then Purina Mill where they made pig feed. Let's not forget these special points due to the availability of Anthrax during an unkown time of testing, and the reports that the 2001 Anthrax mailings appeared to be in a substance that resembled a dog food that had been broke down by moisture, but ultimately dried and flaky at the time of delivery and inspection. 

So I have been told to look for the source, and not the evidence as I already know the truth. The people behind this is where we need to be looking, and who has the ability to profit from it. Who receives the benefit basically... It has always been this way in forgeries. I can guarantee that those who will benefit are those who will commit the crime because no one else will do it for nothing, or if they are admirable people. 

__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #23 
Here lies the most interesting point of all, I have came across many people who believe they know who the suspect is, and after confirming that the handwriting didn't match, I never once created a website to discredit or bash a single person who has come to me. As well, they after seeing the truth have not tried to change my mind.

What does that say for the hate campaign and ignorant people who have decided to bash my character because they cannot discredit my findings. Even Jupiter, in all their glory, has never attempted to cover the handwriting with me even though they adamantly tout that they do not believe me.

I am still waiting for that one intelligent person that wants to cross swords with me on the evidence...

__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #24 
I know that I still need to address the peer review fiasco that occurred within my own mentorship, and I have to relate a new case to my expertise. I am about to come up against a document examiner who rendered an opinion of "probable" in a case that I rendered forgery and conclusive evidence that supports the other document examiner's client committed the forgery. The kicker here, is that this particular document examiner has reviewed my findings in a case separate from the one I am about to go to trial on, that I was spot on, and my findings were correct. I would like to see how his findings are held up after the court finds out that he has confirmed my findings in a separate case, not related to this one, and how that effects his testimony in this current one. It's funny, if I put his findings on this board right now in regards to this case, you can see easily how one becomes a hired gun. I am due to be deposed shortly, and once this case has concluded, I will show exactly what I have meant by a hired gun, and how these doc examiners set up the adversarial system that allows them to make money off their inconsistencies when it comes to handwriting. It is interesting to see that his report almost declares my opinion, but it allows him to continue to defend the defendant when he knows damn well he shouldn't be. But, it appears that money is the name of the game when it comes to the run of the mill expert witness. I will show all once this case has concluded, and it will be no different than the documentary I watched on an expert witness where he declares that he rendered his opinion because he was hired by the defense, and his job was to shed doubt. This disgusts me to my entire core. How could he say I was spot on when asked to review my findings in a case where he was hired by my client to do so, and turn around, and try to discredit me, when he clearly knows I do my due diligence, and my findings are correct. Boy does he have it coming in deposition. I have seen his report, and he teeters on the edge of declaring me right, but still renders an opinion that is contradictory to mine. WE SHALL SEE!!!
__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #25 

Handwriting Examination: Meeting the Challenges of Science and the Law

Diana Harrison
Chief
Questioned Documents Unit
FBI Laboratory
Quantico, Virginia

Ted M. Burkes
Document Analyst/Forensic Examiner
Questioned Documents Unit
FBI Laboratory
Quantico, Virginia

Danielle P. Seiger
Supervisory Document Analyst/Forensic Examiner
Questioned Documents Unit
FBI Laboratory
Quantico, Virginia

Introduction | Scientific Foundation | Methodology | Examination Conclusions | Standards | Conclusion| Acknowledgment | References

Introduction

Handwriting is a complex motor skill that is the combination of sensory, neurological, and physiological impulses. Factors such as visual perception and acuity, comprehension of form, central nervous system pathways, and the anatomy and physiology of the bones and muscles of the hand and arm all combine to produce the desired output (Hilton 1982; Huber 1999).

Most people learn to write by copying letter formations from a copybook at a young age. The ability to reproduce the letter formations varies from one person to the next and is based on each writer’s perception of the image and his or her ability (motor skills) to reproduce that visual perception. The act of handwriting is mastered through practice and repetition. Once this occurs, writers focus on the subject matter rather than the physical act of writing and deviate from the copybook forms, interjecting their own individual characteristics. The writing becomes a pattern of subconscious, habitual formations that are repeated from one writing to the next (Hilton 1982; Huber 1999).

The comparison and evaluation of these individual features or habits enable forensic document examiners to identify or exclude, if possible, a known writer as the source for any questioned writing. Lay people may recognize the handwriting of an individual and differentiate between individuals to some degree; however, they observe only the gross features of the handwriting, such as letter formation, size, or slope of the handwriting. Lay people typically do not consider the subtleties in the writing that may differentiate it from other very similar writing. In contrast, document examiners analyze and can differentiate both the gross features and the less conspicuous elements in the writing.

Handwriting features that examiners evaluate include the size and slope of the writing, pen pressure, pen lifts, the spacing between words and letters, the position of the writing on the baseline (the position of the character in relation to the ruled or imaginary line), height relationships, beginning and ending strokes, and line quality. A writer’s identity cannot be established through a single individual feature in the writing. Rather, identity is established through a combination of the significant features between the writings, with no significant differences.

Figure 1 demonstrates the visual similarity of size, slope, and general formation of such letters as the uppercase S and lowercase a, d, e, f, n, and r. However, a more detailed examination reveals inconsistencies between the two writings (see Figure 2), such as the number of strokes used to form the uppercase R (two versus one), the ending stroke on the lowercase y (straight versus curved), the formation of the lowercase v (straight versus curved), and the structure of the number 8 (two circles versus one continuous formation).

Figure 1: Two handwriting samples that illustrate similarities between them

Figure 2: A closer look at the samples from Figure 1 reveals differences between the writing in each sample.

Not all handwriting is identifiable. For example, when a person traces another individual's signature, that person imitates the writing habits of the original signer, and therefore, the imitator's own handwriting characteristics are not manifested in the tracing. The forensic document examiner would be able to identify the writing as a tracing and associate the writing back to the model signature, if available, but would not be able to identify the writing with the person who traced the signature. Figure 3 illustrates this concept.

In Figure 3, the bottom signature is a tracing of the genuine signature on top, and although they may appear identical, they actually were prepared by two different writers. In fact, the absence of sufficient variation between these two signatures would immediately alert the experienced document examiner to examine the signatures for signs of manipulation, tracing, or simulation.

Figure 3: Two signatures prepared by different writers.

 

The Scientific Foundation for Handwriting Analysis

Individuality

The principle of individuality, also known as the principle of uniqueness, forms the basis for handwriting analysis. That is, no two writers share the same combination of handwriting characteristics given sufficient quantity and quality of writing to compare. Albert S. Osborn (1929) detailed in great length the principle of individuality in the second edition of Questioned Documents, stating, "The amount of writing must necessarily always be considered, but total coincidence of all characters is so remote that even identity of a small amount of writing is very improbable." Throughout the 20th century, Livingston (1963), Muehlberger et al. (1977), Huber (1990), Horton (1996), and others conducted small studies that evaluated the frequency of occurrence of handwriting characteristics in order to demonstrate the principle of uniqueness.

Beacom (1960), Gamble (1980) and Boot (1998) compared the handwriting of twins and other individuals of multiple births. Twins typically share the same environmental influences, study in the same school systems at the same time, and, in the case of identical twins, share the same DNA. Therefore, one would expect the handwriting of twins to be more similar than the writings of any other individuals. In fact, identical twins have been found to share a high degree of similarity in their handwriting. However, these studies, which involved more than 200 sets of twins, all found that trained examiners were able to distinguish between all of the twins' writings.

Finally, anecdotal reports and field screenings by Harvey and Mitchell (1973), Baxendale and Renshaw (1979), Shiver (1996), and others have been useful in demonstrating the principle of uniqueness. These scenarios all involved comparing questioned writing with known writing from between 1000 and 2 million individuals. In each case, examiners identified the writer of the question document.

The most famous of these cases was the kidnapping of Peter Weinberger, a one-month-old baby from Long Island, New York. Examiners compared two ransom notes left by the kidnapper with handwriting specimens maintained by the New York State Motor Vehicle Bureau and various federal, state, and local offices. After examining and eliminating more than 2 million samples, examiners identified the writer (Federal Bureau of Investigation n.d.).

In 2002, Dr. Sargur Srihari and colleagues conducted a study to test the principle of individuality. A sample of 1500 individuals from the general U.S. population was collected and entered into a database. The sample population comprised men and women of different ages and ethnicities. Each individual provided three handwritten samples that captured the various attributes of the written English language such as document structure (e.g., word and line spacing, line skew, margins); positional variations of the letters (i.e., each letter in the initial, middle, and terminal positions of a word); and letter and number combinations (e.g., ff, tt, oo, 00). A computer software program (CEDAR-FOX) was developed to extract macro-features (slant; word proportion; and measures of pen pressure, writing movement, and stroke formation) from the entire document, from a paragraph in the document, and from a word in the document. It was also used to extract micro-features (gradient, structural, and concavity features) at the character level of the document. Based on only a few macro- and micro-features, Srihari et al. established that the writer of a particular sample can be identified with 98 percent confidence. Inferring these statistics over the entire U.S. population, writer identification can be established with 96 percent confidence. Srihari suggested that "by considering finer features, we should be able to make this conclusion with a near 100 percent confidence [that the writer can be identified]" (2002).

An additional study by Srihari and colleagues in 2008 further supported the principle of individuality. This study also involved the evaluation and comparison of handwriting by twins. Writing samples were obtained from 206 pairs of twins from 150 different cities and seven different countries, as well as 412 individuals ("nontwins") from the general U.S. population. The study evaluated four areas: (1) comparison of twins’ handwriting with those of nontwins, (2) comparison of writings in which the textual content of the writing was different, (3) comparison of fraternal and identical twins’ handwriting, and (4) comparison of system versus human performance. The CEDAR-FOX system was again used to evaluate the handwriting for the same style and macro- and micro-features as in the previous study, as well as for additional features not previously evaluated. The system verification error rate for twins was higher than that of nontwins, and the system verification error rate for nontwins was consistent with Srihari et al.'s previous study. The study also found that the system performed better than the layperson but was unable to reach the performance level of the qualified expert.

Variation

No one person writes exactly the same way, even within several repetitions of writings. This is known as natural variation, or intra-writer variation, and represents the second principle of handwriting analysis.

Human beings are not capable of machine-like precision and repetition. As a result of the neuromuscular process, some variation in style (formation) is expected. Variation is an integral part of an individual's writing. It describes the changes and deviations, often minute, that are found in repeated samples of one person's writing. More specifically, variation refers to the different way(s) that a writer makes each letter or character. This variation is normal and serves as an added factor to personalize and individualize writing. As Figure 4 demonstrates, natural variation in an individual’s writing prevents superimposed samples by the same individual from aligning perfectly.

Figure 4: Four signatures written by the same individual, demonstrating variation

In the first two signatures, the initial stroke of the m is wider in the first and higher in the second "Samantha." In the word "Scott," the arrows point to the height differences between the two t's. The third and fourth signatures show the spacing differences between the S and the a and the h and the a in "Samantha," as well as the differences in connecting strokes between the S and the c and the o and the t in the word "Scott."

The duration, extent, and speed involved in the coordination of an activity such as handwriting are so complex and may be combined in so many ways that it is virtually impossible to duplicate all parameters exactly. In this way, a variation in performance can and will occur between repetitions of an action by the same person (Rhodes 1978).

Writing Skill

Every writer has a writing skill that cannot be dramatically improved in a short time frame while maintaining all appearances of natural writing. For this reason, the third principle of handwriting analysis is skill level, or the writer's ability to physically reproduce the letter formations they visualize. Skill level is not necessarily related to legibility or an individual's education level. Individuals can write at or below their skill level but not above their skill level. Figures 5 and 6 show two writing samples prepared by two sisters with a five-year age difference who attended the same schools and grew up in the same environment.

Figure 5 on the left: Low-skilled writer

Figure 6 on the right: High-skilled writer

An individual's known writing, including past writings or writings completed during the regular course of business, enable document examiners to assess the individual's skill level and evaluate the skill level as higher or lower than an evidentiary sample. The author of the writing in Figure 6 would have the skill to produce the writing in Figure 5. In contrast, the author of the writing in Figure 5 would not have the skill to produce the writing in Figure 6.

The Methodology of Handwriting Examination

When conducting handwriting examinations (cursive writing, hand printing, signatures, or extended writing) FBI Laboratory personnel use a four-step process (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2007; ASTM International 2007). The following sections describe the steps in the process

Each analysis begins with an independent examination of the questioned and then the known writing using proper lighting and magnification to determine if the writing is original writing (e.g., ink on paper) and whether it exhibits the characteristics of freely and naturally prepared writing. Some of the characteristics of naturally prepared writing include consistent slant and size, thickening and thinning of the lines as the writing instrument changes direction, and tapered beginning and ending strokes that occur once the writing instrument comes into contact with or leaves the paper. Additionally, each body of writing is examined to assess internal consistency, comparability, and variation and to determine the presence or absence of individualizing characteristics. The most suitable writing for comparison is text void of any attempt to disguise and/or distort the writing; however, any writing can be of value for comparison.

Figure 7 demonstrates the appearance of naturally prepared writing represented by smooth line quality, tapered beginning and ending strokes, variation in line width, and consistent slant.

Figure 7: A bank-robbery note illustrating naturally prepared writing

Figure 8: A bank-robbery note illustrating distorted writing

Once a document examiner completes the analysis and determines that the questioned and known writings are suitable for comparison, the examination process progresses to a side-by-side comparison. The examiner observes the numerous features exhibited in the bodies of writing to determine if significant similarities or differences exist. Every document examiner at the FBI Laboratory completes a two-year training program that includes classroom lectures, practical problems, oral boards, testing, and moot courts. This training provides the fundamental knowledge for examiners to understand the significance of the observed characteristics. Examiners also rely on their ability to discern minute form differences. This ability can be established through form-perception testing. Form-perception tests, also referred to as form-blindness tests, consist of geometric shapes and handwritten words and are used to establish the examiner’s ability to distinguish minute differences in forms, angles, and sizes (Osborn 1975).

The characteristics examiners consider when conducting comparisons are the subtle, subconscious habits of the writer, such as writing in relation to the baseline, the overall formation of the letters, the heights of letters in relation to one another, the manner of connecting letters, the size and spacing of letters, the beginning and ending strokes, pen pressure, and other handwriting characteristics. The document examiner does not consider misspellings as individualizing characteristics of the handwriting.

The following excerpt from ASTM Guide E 2290 (2007) illustrates the extensive list of features document examiners consider during the examination process.

"Among the features to be considered by the examiner are elements of the writing such as abbreviation; alignment; arrangement, formatting, and positioning; capitalization; connectedness and disconnectedness; cross strokes and dots, diacritics and punctuation; direction of strokes; disguise; embellishments; formation; freedom of execution; handedness; legibility; line quality; method of production; pen hold and pen position; overall pressure and patterns of pressure; emphasis; proportion; simplification; size; skill; slant or slope; spacing; speed; initial, connecting, and terminal strokes; system; tremor; type of writing; and range of variation. Other features such as lifts, stops and hesitations of the writing instrument; patching and retouching; slow, drawn quality of the line; unnatural tremor; and guide lines of various forms should be looked for and considered when present. Potential limiting factors such as age; illness or injury; medication, drugs or alcohol (intoxication or withdrawal); awkward writing position; cold or heat; fatigue; haste or carelessness; nervousness; nature of the document; use of the unaccustomed hand; [and] deliberate attempt at disguise or auto-forgery should be considered" (ASTM 2007) because they may not represent the natural handwriting of the individual

Figure 9 demonstrates some of the characteristics evaluated during an examination. Number 1 demonstrates how the uppercase I sits below the ruled line. Number 2 shows the connecting stroke between the s and t. Number 3 demonstrates how the N is higher than the g. Number 4 shows the larger size of the N when compared to the adjacent letters.

Figure 9: The handwriting sample from Figure 5, illustrating 1, baseline; 2, connecting stroke; 3, height relationships; 4, size

The next step in the methodology involves evaluating the significance of the nature and combination of the characteristics observed during the comparison process. This evaluation is based on the examiner’s training, knowledge, and experience. To identify a body of writing with a particular writer, the examiner must find significant characteristics in common between the questioned and known writing, while observing no significant differences. Each characteristic may not be unique when considered individually, but when coupled with other observed characteristics, the writing is then considered unique to a particular writer. To eliminate a writer as having prepared a questioned writing, an examiner must observe significant differences between the questioned and known writing.

It is not always possible to render an opinion of identification or elimination based on the nature of the questioned and known writing provided for examination. These limitations include evaluation of photocopied specimens, which yield poor detail and clarity and prevent the examiner from properly assessing line quality, connecting strokes, letter formations, and beginning and ending strokes; distorted or disguised writing, which does not exhibit the normal handwriting characteristics of the writer; limited questioned and/or known writing, which may not allow proper assessment of skill level and identifying characteristics; lack of comparable known writing, which does not allow for a thorough comparison of the characteristics observed in the questioned writing; and prior chemical testing on the document, which may hamper subsequent examinations

Although examiners may not be able to associate a handwriting sample with a specific individual, they can sometimes determine the origin or authenticity of the writing. However, handwriting examinations cannot determine such traits as age, sex, personality, or intent (ASTM 2007).

The final step in the examination process is verification. In this step, another qualified examiner evaluates the writing submitted for comparison using the methodology previously described. In the FBI Laboratory Questioned Documents Unit (QDU), 100 percent of the cases are peer-reviewed by another qualified examiner. QDU examiners also conduct blind reviews in cases meeting previously established criteria.

Conclusions Reached During Handwriting Examinations

The FBI Laboratory has not established a specific number of "points" or characteristics needed to identify a questioned writing as having been prepared by a particular individual. In order for a forensic document examiner to identify an individual as having prepared a questioned writing, agreement must exist between significant characteristics in the questioned and known writing with no significant differences. The examiner must explain any exceptions.

The FBI Laboratory’s Questioned Documents Unit uses the following conclusions in handwriting comparisons:

  • Identification-A definite determination that the questioned and known writings were prepared by the same writer because of agreement in individualizing characteristics. No differences are present, except for normal variation. Unexplained variations or characteristics are far outweighed by the combined effect of agreement in all other details. The typical wording for this conclusion in an FBI Laboratory report would be: "It was determined that the questioned writing on specimen Q1 was prepared by John Doe, the writer of K1."
  • May Have (Qualified Opinion)-Indications that the questioned and known writings were prepared by the same writer. The evidence is persuasive because of the presence of characteristics in common between the specimens; however, some doubt or lack of agreement in detail is observed, usually because of some limitation or the presence of characteristics observed in the questioned writing that could not be explained on the basis of the available known writing. The conclusion is less than definite but leans toward identification. The typical wording for this conclusion in an FBI Laboratory report would be: "A definite determination could not be reached as to whether the questioned writing on specimen Q1 was prepared by John Doe, the writer of K1, due to [list limiting factors]. However, handwriting characteristics in common were observed that indicate that John Doe, the writer of K1, may have prepared the questioned writing on specimen Q1."
  • No Conclusion-The examiner cannot determine whether the questioned and known writings were prepared by the same writer, usually because of such factors as lack of comparability or lack of clarity and detail in the submitted specimens, which may significantly limit meaningful examinations. In instances when meaningful examinations can be conducted, the weight of the combination of characteristics observed in common is counterbalanced by the weight of the combination of inconsistencies or unexplained characteristics observed. The typical wording for this conclusion in an FBI Laboratory report would be: "It could not be determined whether the questioned writing on specimen Q1 was prepared by John Doe, the writer of K1, due to [list limiting factors]."
  • May Not Have (Qualified Opinion)-Indications that the questioned and known writings were not prepared by the same writer. The evidence is persuasive because of the presence of inconsistencies/dissimilarities between the specimens. However, some doubt remains, usually because of some limitation, the presence of some significant characteristics in common, or the presence of inconsistencies or characteristics observed in the questioned writing that could not be explained as differences based on the available known writing. The conclusion is less than definite but leans toward elimination. The typical wording for this conclusion in an FBI Laboratory report would be: "A definite determination could not be reached as to whether the questioned writing on specimen Q1 was prepared by John Doe, the writer of K1, due to [list limiting factors]. However, handwriting inconsistencies were observed that indicate John Doe, K1, may not have prepared the questioned writing on specimen Q1."
  • Elimination-A definite determination that the questioned and known writings were not prepared by the same writer because of sufficient disagreement in individualizing characteristics. Differences are observed. Any limited similarities are far outweighed by the combined effect of sufficient disagreement in all other details. No significant limitations are present. The typical wording for this conclusion in an FBI Laboratory report would be: "It was determined that the questioned writing on specimen Q1 was not prepared by John Doe, the writer of K1."

 

In the samples of writing in Figure 10, the baseline of the uppercase I, the connecting stroke between the S and the h, the height of the k in relation to adjacent letters in the word, and the structural differences in the g, r, and t are consistently different between the writings, thus illustrating an elimination conclusion

Figure 10: The handwriting sample from Figure 5, along with a comparison sample from a different writer, illustrating an elimination conclusion. The number 1s point to baseline alignment; number 2s, the connecting strokes; number 3s, height relationships; and number 4s, structural differences.

Standards

The Technical Working Group for Documents, now the Scientific Working Group for Questioned Documents (SWGDOC), was formed in 1997 to address the need for standards in the forensic document community. SWGDOC's technical experts produce standards and submit them to ASTM International for ballot and eventual publication. ASTM is a voluntary standards development organization for technical standards for materials, products, systems, and services. The ASTM Committee E30 on Forensic Science was established in 1970 and consists of 10 technical subcommittees, one of which is the E30.02 Committee on Questioned Documents. Each standard submitted to ASTM is subjected to a rigorous review process by forensic document examiners and other forensic practitioners, as well as individuals with a general interest in the discipline. This review process ensures clear, concise, and high-quality standards.

To date, the forensic document discipline has published the following 18 standards through ASTM (see http://www.ASTM.org ). The two-digit number following the hyphen indicates the date of the standard and, as of this writing, is the most current standard available

  • E444-09 Standard Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic Document Examiners.
  • E1422-05 Standard Guide for Test Methods for Forensic Writing Ink Comparison.
  • E1658-08 Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners.
  • E1789-04 Standard Guide for Writing Ink Identification.
  • E2195-02 Standard Terminology Relating to the Examination of Questioned Documents.
  • E2285-08 Standard Guide for Examination of Mechanical Checkwriter Impressions.
  • E2286-08a Standard Guide for Examination of Dry Seal Impressions.
  • E2287-09 Standard Guide for Examination of Fracture Patterns and Paper Fiber Impressions on Single-Strike Film Ribbons and Typed Text.
  • E2288-09 Standard Guide for Physical Match of Paper Cuts, Tears, and Perforations in Forensic Document Examinations.
  • E2289-08 Standard Guide for Examination of Rubber Stamp Impressions.
  • E2290-07a Standard Guide for Examination of Handwritten Items.
  • E2291-03 Standard Guide for Indentation Examinations.
  • E2325-05 Standard Guide for Non-destructive Examination of Paper.
  • E2331-04 Standard Guide for Examination of Altered Documents.
  • E2388-05 Standard Guide for Minimum Training Requirements for Forensic Document Examiners.
  • E2389-05 Standard Guide for Examination of Documents Produced with Liquid Ink Jet Technology.
  • E2390-06 Standard Guide for Examination of Documents Produced with Toner Technology.
  • E2494-08 Standard Guide for Examination of Typewritten Items.

 

Additionally, standards that have been submitted to ASTM for ballot and publication include:

  • Standard Guide for the Preservation of Charred Documents
  • Standard Guide for the Preservation of Liquid-Soaked Documents.
  • Standard Guide for Examination of Handwritten Items for Simulation and Tracing.
  • Standard Guide for Classification of Facsimile Devices using Transmitting Terminal Identifier/Receiving Terminal Identifier (TTI/RTI).
  • Financial and Identification Documents.
  • Case Review.

 

Conclusion

As a discipline routinely accepted under Frye (Frye v. United States, 54 App. D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013, 1014 [1923]), forensic document examination has been consistently accepted in the courts in spite of the challenges generated by the Daubert decision in 1993 (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 [1993]). Published research demonstrates the validity of the expertise and supports the principle of handwriting individuality. Published standards ensure consistency in methodology. Document examiners in both public (local, state, federal, and international) and private laboratories use these standards. Ongoing academic research continues to support the forensic document examination community in strengthening the scientific basis for handwriting comparison.

Acknowledgment

This is publication number 09-17 of the Laboratory Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Names of commercial manufacturers are provided for identification only, and inclusion does not imply endorsement by the FBI

References

ASTM International. E2290-07a Standard Guide for Examination of Handwritten Items. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 2007. Available: http://www.astm.org/Standards/E2290.htm

Baker, J. N. Law of Disputed and Forged Documents. Michie, Charlottesville, Virginia,1955, p. 57–58.

Baxendale, D. and Renshaw, I. D. The large-scale searching of handwriting samples, Journal of the Forensic Science Society (1979) 19:245–251.

Beacom, M. S. A study of handwriting by twins and other persons of multiple births, Journal of Forensic Sciences (1960) 5:121–131.

Boot, D. An investigation into the degree of similarity in the handwriting of identical and fraternal twins in New Zealand, Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (1998) 1(2):70–81.

Byrd, J. S. and Bertram, D. Form-blindness, Journal of Forensic Identification (2003) 53:315–341.

Evett, I. W. and Totty, R. N. A study of the variation in the dimensions of genuine signatures, Journal of the Forensic Science Society (1985) 25:207–215.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Famous cases: The Weinberger kidnapping, FBI History [Online]. (n.d.). Available: http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/weinber/weinbernew.htm Accessed August 25, 2009.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. Laboratory Division. Questioned Documents Unit Protocols. FBI Laboratory, Quantico, Virginia, 2007.

Gamble, D. The handwriting of identical twins, Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal (1980) 13:11–30.

Harvey, R. and Mitchell, R. M. The Nicola Brazier murder: The role of handwriting in a large-scale investigation, Journal of the Forensic Science Society (1973) 13:157–168.

Hilton, O. Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents. Elsevier, New York, 1982, pp. 10, 17, 153–157, 174.

Horton, R. A. A study of the occurrence of certain handwriting characteristics in a random population, International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners (1996) 2:95–102.

Huber, R. A. The Uniqueness of Writing. Presented at the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners annual meeting, San Jose, California, 1990.

Huber, R. A. and Headrick A. M. Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals. CRC Press-Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, 1999, pp. 10–14..

Inman, K. and Rudin, N. Principles and Practice of Criminalistics: The Profession of Forensic Science. CRC Press-Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, 2001, pp. 123–125

Keele, S. W. Movement control in skilled motor performance, Psychological Bulletin (1968) 70:387–403

Livingston, O. B. Frequency of certain characteristics in handwriting, pen-printing of two hundred people, Journal of Forensic Sciences (1963) 8:250–258.

Muehlberger, R. J., Newman, K. W., Regent, J., and Wichmann, J. G. A statistical examination of selected handwriting characteristics, Journal of Forensic Sciences (1977) 22:206–215.

Osborn, A. S., Questioned Documents. 2nd ed., Nelson-Hall, Chicago, 1929, pp. 205–216, 226–233, 247–248, 363–376.

Osborn, A. S. The Problem of Proof. 2nd ed., Nelson-Hall, Chicago, Illinois, 1975, pp. 491–501

Purdy, D. C. Identification of handwriting. In: Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents. 2nd ed., J. S. Kelly and B. S. Lindblom, Eds. CRC Press-Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, Florida, 2006, p. 47–74.

Rhodes, E. F. The implications of kinesthetic factors in forensic handwriting comparisons, Doctoral thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1978

Shiver, F. C. Case Report: The Individuality of Handwriting Demonstrated Through the Field Screening of 1000 Writers. Presented at the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners annual meeting, Washington, D.C., 1996.

Srihari, S. N., Cha, S.-H., Arora, H., and Lee, S. Individuality of handwriting, Journal of Forensic Sciences (2002) 47:856–872.

Srihari, S., Huang, C., and Srinivasan, H. On the discriminability of the handwriting of twins, Journal of Forensic Sciences (2008) 53:430–446.


__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #26 
There are many things to be said about this article, and it is interesting to see that it is compiled by the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2009/Zbackup/Review/2009_10_review02.htm

It gives many points for me to question in regards to the supposed exam that was done in the Z case and JT. I will be addressing them after I have read the article in it's entirety to make sure that I covered each base, but it is not holding well for the song and dance Chris Hopkins gave DK and I. And, these arguments are made within the very agency that Chris Hopkins represents...

__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #27 

It's trial time, and we shall see who is found to be telling the truth... This very occasion will stand out in history for the "true of heart" doc examiner and has exponential effects on my career and the believability of my work...


__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #28 
I received an email message from Linkedin:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nanette,
 
I've just endorsed you for new skills & expertise!
 
 
 
 
 
 
You are receiving Endorsements emails. Unsubscribe.
 
This email was intended for Nanette Barto (Owner at Eye for the Obvious). Learn why we included this. © 2013, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA
 
 
 

__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #29 
This endorsement was from Conrad Luznar, specialist in contrasting anyone from the Opard board. My number 1 Nemesis, and contradictory from any info I delivered on my first go round with Dennis....Why is he endorsing any skills or techniques I have today???
__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
habituation

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #30 

Law Enforcement in Action:

 

This page will be reserved for the action or non-action from various law enforcement agencies since I have been on this case, and a few from Dennis Kaufman's experience that include recorded phone call conversations. Best I can tell, these eminated around 2002-2002. 

 

Conversation with particular law enforcement agencies that wreak of "who has the ball?" You can click on the link or the name of the agency depending on what files your computer will handle.

http://chirb.it/HqCxKv :  Chris Hopkins FBI

http://chirb.it/J19GqcKelly Carrol SFPD

http://chirb.it/P5I6IK :  Kelly Carrol SFPD

http://chirb.it/P32pHm : Ken Hittmeier FBI (2001) 

http://chirb.it/98PKLFTom Conner So Lake Tahoe PD 

http://chirb.it/5LmJ35Tom Conner So Lake Tahoe PD 

http://chirb.it/csFfCI :  Tom Conner So Lake Tahoe PD 

Sonoma County PD is sitting on a palm print of Jack's that has yet to be allowed by SFPD to be compared to the Zodiac's. Absolutely disgusting, and here is the proof they have and are fighting the same system that is suppose to be helping to solve this case, and they have more unsolved homicides during the Zodiac period than SFPD to begin with.

 

http://chirb.it/N4vd5m  : Steve Brown Sonoma County PD (SPD) 

http://chirb.it/Nh7HAN  : Steve Brown SPD

 

 

 

 

 

 


__________________
Have a positive and inspirational day!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.