Talk:Questioned document examination

Clean-up

Just added a cleanup-date template to this. The mention of a TV show on the very first paragraph and the removal of a References section (deemed not belonging to an encyclopaedia) by the main author of this article makes me highly suspicious of its accuracy and reliability.

Being ignorant on the subject myself, I consider smacking a template to be my best course of action towards helping improve this article. Removal of mentions of popular culture sources from the main body of the article and the addition of proper references would help greatly.

• These issues were resolved (I hope) and the clean-up tag removed. Brent Ostrum 21:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Who does this work?

Don't know if anyone is still looking at this page, but why wouldn't a forensic document expert and a graphologist be the same? There are quite a few in the U.S. who make their living doing both. This distinction smacks of POV, not actual case studies. Bruxism (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• There is a large difference between a forensic document examiner and a graphologist. The latter is a person who claims to be able to determine a writer's personality from their handwriting, similar to how a palm reader would read the lines in a person's hand. They're both devoid of evidence to back up their claims. On the other hand, a forensic document examiner is a trained, tested and skilled practitioner who almost always has at least a bachelor's degree in a scientific discipline, is trained under other skilled examiners in a recognized and often accredited laboratory, and provides testimony to a court, inquest, or tribunal as an expert witness. Moreover, a skilled examiner compares two pieces of writing to determine authorship, no inference to personality is made in the slightest. Those who claim to be able to perform both disciplines should be approached with extreme caution as they most likely are lacking any real scientific approach to their work. This isn't POV, these are the standards of the profession. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.bsbforensic.com/pdf_docs/Know%20Your%20Expert.pdf explains the difference in the training and qualifications between a Forensic Document Examiner, and a graphologist.jonathon (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Category: Forensic Document Examiners

I noticed that Charles Chabot is in the category "Graphology". Given the vast difference between those two fields, I think that they belong in a category of their own. OTOH, I didn't find any of the expected names in wikipedia.  :( jonathon (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also changed a number of wikilinks from Handwriting analysis to Questioned document examination. "Handwriting analyis" is a redirect to the article on "graphology". jonathon (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

US centric

I tagged the article as US centric, perhaps US/Canada centric would be more accurate. The arutcle says "ASTM Standard E444-98", I am guessing that is some kind of US standard, certainly the article refers to the US legal and law enforcement system. I have no idea how handwriting analysis works in the rest of the English speaking world. I wonder if "QDE" is used as a term outside North America? Billlion (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• The comment about the article being NA-centric is fair enough. The article can use some work in that respect though it's not as bad as you think. ASTM Standards are international in scope, not solely American in nature. There are other standard (quite similar for the most part) but they aren't as readily accessible; hence not as often referenced. Forensic HW analysis is done pretty much the same way everywhere -- English speaking and non-English speaking. The term "QDE" would be recognized, if not used, pretty much anywhere you go. I personally use "Forensic Document Examiner" but some prefer things like "Examiner of Questioned Documents". There is no 'one' title but QDE is something almost everyone in the discipline would recognize.

209.87.250.53 (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can (talk)

• The recent attempt to rename this page suggests that the issue of 'focus' for the page is still a problem. Personally, I don't believe that's the case — there is a lot of information on the page that relates to non-US/non-Canadian content. Furthermore, and perhaps more important, the information provided reflects the manner in which QDE/FDE is conducted in most (if not all) parts of the world, at least in my professional experience. Now, at the same time, I suppose that it might be possible to add other info relating to different countries/regions/whatever. I tried to do this by splitting the 'certification' section since certification is one area where differences will exist by region/country. But I really don't see what else can be done to 'improve' the page and make it less 'US-centric' (since it really isn't now). As far as I'm concerned, the tag should simply be removed. If you don't agree, then please give some suggestion about precisely what (type of) information is missing. -- RB Ostrum. 20:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading the current article, I see no reason why is should be considered US-centric. ASTM standards are international and used by many countries both in and outside the Commonwealth. There are many international references included in the article as well. For these reasons, I have removed the tag. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Could someone rewrite the lead so it actually starts by explaining what the article topic is about? When I tried reading the article, I had to pretty much scroll down to understand what this was supposed to be about. A good idea is not to start the article with a list of alternative terms and then expand on the tasks of a "forensic document examiner" without even explaining what a "forensic document" is, or for that matter a graphologist.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

How does this sound?

Questioned document examination (QDE) is the forensic discipline pertaining to documents that are (or may be) in dispute in a court of law. The primary purpose of forensic document examination is to answer questions about a disputed document using a variety of scientific processes and methods. Many examinations involve a comparison of the questioned document, or components of the document, to a set of known standards. The most common type of examination involves handwriting wherein the examiner tries to address concerns about potential authorship.

A document examiner is often asked to determine if a questioned item originated from the same source as the known item(s), then present their opinion on the matter in court as an expert witness. Other common tasks include determining what has happened to a document, determining when a document was produced, or deciphering information on the document that has been obscured, obliterated or erased.

The discipline is known by many names including forensic document examination, document examination, diplomatics, handwriting examination, or sometimes handwriting analysis, although the latter name is not often used as it may be confused with graphology. Likewise a forensic document examiner is not to be confused with a graphologist, and vice versa.

I wouldn't bother explaining graphology or graphologist as it is linked to another wiki page.

209.87.250.53 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can (talk)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hauptmann handwriting comparison.jpg

The image Image:Hauptmann handwriting comparison.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --11:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The image refers directly to the Lindbergh kidnapping case, where document examination showed handwriting of the kidnapper and the accused to be very similar. I have thus restored thedeleted image. Peterlewis (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the idea that the image relates to the article however the wiki guidelines state "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images [my emphasis added] are not suitable for Wikipedia." IMO this image is simply representative of an historically significant QDE case. As such perhaps it should be replaced by another similar, but 'free', image. One example would be an image like the one on this FBI web-page. This image should meet wiki standards as the site is a DOJ production which expressed states (in part) "information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission. Citation to the Department of Justice as the source of the information is appreciated, as appropriate." The exception to this policy is for use of any Department of Justice seals but this image isn't in that category. 198.103.184.76 (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can (talk)

By all means include your new image. But the one up there already makes comparisons, and so relates much more directly to the article.Peterlewis (talk) 16:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant data - 'tools of the trade'?

Just wanted to ask for more information about why the reversion was made to the entry regarding 'tools of the trade'?

The explanation given was simply "irrelevant data added". I disagree - the information is quite relevant. It consisted of a list of equipment used in the field to examine suspect documents. There is no question that the list was not finished and needed more work; in particular, expansion on how the equipment is used in document examination.

I'm sure there would be a better way to present the information but I think it has value. The 'list' at present is definitely insufficient. In fact, it is terribly misleading because it doesn't begin to show what actually is or can be used in the field.

One of the general problems I have had with this page is the limited information about non-handwriting examination types. There are a lot of examiners who do little more than the most basic examinations (mainly handwriting) and they require minimal equipment. Document examination as a forensic field is much more than just handwriting examination (as mentioned in the scope). But it didn't read that way to me. That was the reason behind the changes to the examination area to include non-handwriting topics.

That logically leads (in my mind) to the need for more information about the equipment used (though maybe it's more a matter of methods used). Granted that most laboratories or examiners do not have access to all of this equipment (our lab is one notable exception) but this equipment is used in the field to address a variety of QD problems. That was also the reason why the title was changed to drop the 'common' adjective.

So, I suppose I have 3 questions:

1. is it reasonable to try and expand the information into this area? If not, then why?
2. if it is, and the list I put up isn't the way to go, then how should the information be presented? I am definitely open to suggestions in that regard.
3. what else does the page need? I have been thinking about developing a section that explores issues relating to examiner competency (proficiency testing, etc) as they pertain to admissibility of this type of evidence (under rulings like Daubert, Mohan, etc). That will take some time as it is a rather contentious issue for some people.

Brent Ostrum (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've left this issue for some time hoping that people might chime in with an opinion on the topic. Since it has been over a year with no feedback at all, it's probably safe to say nobody really cares even though the "Common tools of the trade" part of this page is a ridiculously limited and incomplete list, particularly as it applies to non-handwriting examinations. Look at the section immediately preceding this one — many of the examinations mentioned require tools and equipment not on the present list (arguably because they are not 'common' enough which was part of my original point). Basically, I am posting this comment to 'bump' the topic with the hope that someone will notice and provide some input/commentary. If nobody has an opinion to the contrary, I will attempt again in the New Year to improve this part of the page. RB Ostrum (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate info/link?

I'm a little concerned about two recent additions to the page; specifically the entry "IFO-Forensic Standards and Research private Ltd (India)New Delhi-(IFSR)" under organizations dedicted to QDE and the URL "http://ifo.ifsr.in/handwritingexperts.html" under external links. Both are related, of course. I don't know either of these which isn't surprising as they are in India. But their website suggests to me that 1) it may be a company providing this service (not a professional organization like the others on the list) and 2) they provide services in graphology (which clearly is not appropriate for the QD page). IMO, both of these additions should be removed but I would like some other opinions before proceeding. Thanks. RB Ostrum 14:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can (talk • contribs)

That organization is more akin to World Association of Document Examiners than it is to National Association of Document Examiners.jonathon (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That may well be the case. But what's your opinion about whether or not this info should be on the page — do you think it should be removed or kept? I would guess the former but I don't want to guess incorrectly. -- RB Ostrum 15:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can (talk • contribs)

I think that active QDEs should make the call. Whilst I was trained in questioned document examination, I have never worked in that field. Nonetheless, I'd exclude them because they are commercial businesses, not organizations of QDEs. jonathon (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now I just need to get a few more colleagues involved somehow. I will give it some time to see if anyone else wants to comment. Either way, I agree and don't think the info belongs here due to the 'commercial interest'. Thanks. -- RB Ostrum 00:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QDE-can (talk • contribs)

Just happened upon this page of the site and would like to comment on a few things mentioned both in this part and others. QDE / FDE are both common terms used within the industry, regardless of who you work for. It is definately NOT a US-centric discipline with some of the best centres of excellence for training being not just in the US or even in universities, but in the rest of the world. Certainly the UK and Holland would be two of the better live examining and training offices. The common tools of the trade are correctly listed. They are used for the analysis of both Travel - any document with which you can travel across borders, ie, Passport, National ID card or Drivers Licence, and supporting documents, ie, documents that you use to support various applications. These would include utility bills, bank statements, birth certificates, marriage / divorce certificates and of course, education certifictates. The list is not exhaustive. The use of standard loupes, stereo microscopes, VSC's, etc, is quite correct. There are other tools but they are specialist and tend to trend in and out depending upon the type of security features being used at that time. Loupes (hand held magnifiers) and stereo microscopes (same as a mono-microscope, but with two viewers) are self explanatory. For those of you who do not know what a VSC is, well, apart from meaning Video Spectral Analyser, what it actually does is this: It is a viewing chamber which can be totally sealed which is necessary because some of the light sources it emits are harmful. (MW and SW UV for example). It generates not just UV light but also IR and can apply various filters to distinguish between the frequency responses of inks, etc. (Please note this is not just for handwriting, it is also for printed inks!). It can also apply oblique and transmitted light used for testing for abrasion, watermarks, turfing, etc. VSC's will also have a microscope feature. Depending upon the make and model of VSC being used, they vary in price from several thousands to several tens of thousands of UK pounds. They are invariably linked to a screen viewer and also to a computer for the purposes of recording and editing images for later submission as exhibits. And finally. I am a Document Examiner. I do not have a science degree, just a lot of experience in the document field with many sucessful prosecutions under my belt. I don't do handwriting, it is a completely different discipline and certainly none of colleagues, either nationally or internationally, speak the two disciplines in the same breath. Hope this is of some assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Substrates (talk • contribs) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

CEDAR-FOX

I propose that CEDAR-FOX (CAT:O, November 2010) be added to the list of internal links. (I am adding this talk page to my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with this proposal. On the other hand, I just edited the list of Academic/Research groups so that there is now an internal link to the page for CEDAR at SUNY (that should already have been done). There is a link to Cedar-FOX from there — will that suffice? -- RB Ostrum. 19:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to add a direct link from this article also, but I am willing to wait for a few days to see what other editors might say about it.

—Wavelength (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I also like the link within the article body. CEDAR-FOX is worthy of more than just a footnote because it is a notable avenue of QD research that has positively affected the profession. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have edited Questioned document examination#Common tools of the trade, by adding a link to CEDAR-FOX.

—Wavelength (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting place to put it... but I think inappropriate/misleading. The software is not commonly used by FDEs in their day-to-day work. At least, not yet. There are several labs that have the software for evaluation purposes but I don't know of anyone actually using it in casework. In fact, I would love to hear from anyone who has taken that step just to learn how they intend presenting the results in court. Anyway, I agree that a link in the article is a good idea but I don't know where that link should go — I don't think it fits in with 'common' tools. In a way, this relates to the earlier discussion about the common tools section of the article. Perhaps it is time to expand on the topic into some of the less 'common' tools of the trade. — RB Ostrum. 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to remove it from that section, and add it to Questioned document examination#See also, where I was originally going to add it. That section has a hidden message advising editors to seek consensus before adding links, and that is the reason for this discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a better place for it right now. Mind you, I do think the section on tools needs to be developed further because it doesn't begin to reflect all of the equipment used in many FDE labs. And thanks for respecting the instruction regarding additions. It's much better to have this discussion up-front. — RB Ostrum. 01:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have moved the link.

—Wavelength (talk) 02:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

External links

There is a lot of external links to forensic institutes, but Wikipedia is not a repository of external links (see WP:NOTLINK). I will shortly remove most of them, maybe I'll leave only a dmoz link. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with the suggestion to remove the list though I do think the dmoz link could stay. Basically, the original intent of the list was to give readers convenient access to information sources related to entities/groups mentioned in the article (but not yet in WP). However, I don't think the list is an appropriate way to achieve that goal. As it stands, it doesn't add much to the article. By way of counter-argument and solely for the purpose of full discussion, I will note that the list is not that long; it's clearly not excessive to the point of 'overwhelming' the other page content. I would be willing to hear other counter-argument if anyone has one (I don't). FWIW, I would like to see internal WP pages developed as an alternative but I don't think that's likely to happen anytime soon. — RB Ostrum. 15:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Y Done

I used two DMOZ links, both seeme to apply to this article. Please someone with more experience check that they are adequate:

• /Science/Science_in_Society/Forensic_Science/Document_Examination/
• /Society/Law/Services/Expert_Witnesses/Questioned_Documents/

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the remaining DMOZ links because they are largely irrelevant. The links previously removed by Enric Naval were to professional organizations but the DMOZ links are merely individual practitioner websites and don't serve to adequately replace what was lost. What's more, many of the practitioner websites have questionable credentials or are graphologically related and therefore not QD related. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• After reviewing the DMOZ lists more carefully I have to concur that they are not good at all. They definitely don't add anything in the way of useful information. Thanks for checking them out. — RB Ostrum. 03:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

History section?

Is anyone interested in adding a section pertaining to the history of QDE? It could be broken down by geographic regions/countries and include key people, organizations, events/cases and other interesting developments (eg. technology). The list of historical cases presently in the article is fine but doesn't give much in the way of useful information. Comments? — RB Ostrum. 03:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope and list of examination types

I would like to move the following entries from the 'Scope' section to the 'Examination' section, possibly to act as a mini-intro for the latter section:

FDEs examine items that form part of a case which may or may not come before a court of law. The many types of possible examinations include the following:

• Handwriting (cursive / printing) and Signatures
• Typewriters, Photocopiers, Laser printers, Ink Jet Printers, Fax machines
• Chequewriters, Rubber stamps, Price markers, Label makers
• Printing Processes
• Ink, Pencil, Paper
• Alterations, additions, erasures, obliterations
• Indentation detection and/or decipherment
• Sequence of Strokes
• Physical Matching

Please note that I don't have a problem with the list, per se.

I just think it would fit better in the other section of the page. Any comments? — RB Ostrum. 17:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any comments to the contrary and in line with WP:BB I am moving this section. — RB Ostrum. 01:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Content analysis

Content analysis is definitely related to QDE, since it's also about determining the authorship of a document (although it uses the text instead of the means of writing or printing). Thus, it belongs in the "See also" section. NeonMerlin 14:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument. Depending upon your definition of content analysis, the argument holds though I have always considered it more aligned with stylometry than forensic handwriting analysis (which is only part of the field of questioned document examination). Nonetheless, I don't see any significant issue adding it to "See also". — RB Ostrum. 15:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Adolf Beck

I was just reviewing the recent edit by Tumacama regarding the Adolf Beck cases from 1896 and 1904. The entry presently reads "The Adolf Beck cases (1896 and 1904) where handwriting expert Thomas H. Gurrin repeated an erroneous identification". I have only a passing familiarity with the case and know of it more for its role in pointing out issues with eye-witness identification than for the handwriting. Out of curiosity I checked a few references (starting with the wiki page) but I didn't see any support for the claim that there had been a repeated error. Maybe I missed something but it wasn't clear to me that any handwriting expert had been involved in the 1904 matter at all. Anyway, I tagged this as a dubious claim with the hope that a clear reference could be provided one way or the other. — RB Ostrum. 02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Managed to sort this out. Handwriting evidence was not used in either the 1877 or 1904 cases during the trials. Gurrin was involved in the 1896 trial when he did falsely identify Beck — his examination at that time involved material from both 1877 and 1904. Part of the prosecution argument in 1896 was that Beck was really 'John Smith', a man who had been found guilty and imprisoned for the previous crime in 1877. In 1904 the issue of Beck's innocence relating to all three incidents (1877, 1896 and 1904) was ultimately resolved after the real culprit, supposedly Wilhelm Meyer, was discovered. So, as far as the article entry is concerned, it would seem there was no 'repeat' error by Gurrin; just one error in 1896 that involved both that and an earlier date. — RB Ostrum. 16:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Ignore my previous entry. Gurrin did repeat his error in 1904 with Gurrin testifying at the Old Bailey on June 27, 1904. Sorry for the confusion. — RB Ostrum. 16:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC) :)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Questioned document examination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120428230852/http://www.gfs2000.de:80/home_en.html to http://www.gfs2000.de/home_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

ACE-V cleanup

There seems to be some confusion about this section of the article. The intent was/is to provide an explanation of the processes used for this work (ACE-V), as presented and explained by the original author who coined the term.

In an effort to clarify that this section presents that point-of-view as-is, I have rewritten it accordingly. That was done to avoid incorrect paraphrasing (or misinterpretation about the intent of these entries). I don't know if the formatting is perfect though — I opted for blockquotes for each entry and that may not be the best choice. — RB Ostrum. 15:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Article Rename Request

I've been thinking that this article should be moved to the new name of "Forensic Document Examination". When I created the article back in 2004, I named it based on many of the references I was reading at the time. The term "Questioned" persists only in the associations' names for historical reasons, but in modern parlance (as it was also in 2004 actually), the term "Forensic" is definitely the accurate descriptor. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

analysis for authentication of handwritten signatures

Is there a Wikipedia article specifically about analysis for authentication of handwritten signatures?

I see that at least one person was looking for such an article, and was surprised that signature analysis redirects to an unrelated article about (electronic) "analog signature analysis". If there's currently no specific article on the topic of authenticating handwritten signatures, is there even a specific *section* of an article specifically about that topic? I see that a bunch of articles briefly mention examination of handwritten signatures, including graphanalysis (which redirects to a section of this questioned document examination article), authentication, Writer Recognition (which redirects to handwritten biometric recognition), handwriting recognition, optical character recognition, and intelligent word recognition. (I've heard that at least some of the electronic signature collection devices that I "sign" with a stylus somehow use "extra" information about timing, pressure variations, etc. to do a better job confirming that it's really me, vs. than other systems that only analyze a "photo" of a complete handwritten signature). None of the sections in those articles seem to be specifically about analyzing a person's name in the form of a hand-written signature for the purpose of detecting whether it's a forgery by some other person pretending to be some person by writing that person's name. --DavidCary (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2023 (UTC)