Huber and Headrick's Handwriting Identification

Facts and Fundamentals, Second Edition

Heidi H. Harralson, Larry S. Miller

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351648509
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Law
• Subtopic: Criminal Law
• Index: Law

"Forensic document examination is the study of physical evidence and physical evidence cannot lie. Only its interpretation can err. Only the failure to find it, or to hear its true testimony can deprive it of its value."—Roy Huber

This is a comprehensive update of Huber and Headrick's seminal work on handwriting examination. New coverage includes a review of forensic handwriting examination research, handwriting analysis training and proficiency, revised methods and procedures, an updated listing and clarification of terminology and electronic signatures, the analysis of digitized handwriting, and other related technological advances. The book includes updated photographs, several added illustrations, and advances in techniques based on the scientific research conducted in the area over the last 20 years.

Features of the new edition include:

• The latest on electronic signatures, digital handwriting, automated handwriting verification, and the many advances in technology and research over the last two decades
• An overview of the fundamentals of handwriting examination with updated discussion of the intrinsic and extrinsic variables associated with handwriting identification
• A review of the criticism of handwriting expert opinions and methodology, addressing both the strengths and scientific limitations of the area
• Fully revised while remaining true to the spirit and approach of original authors Roy Huber and A. M. Headrick
• Addition of nearly 200 new references and new glossary terms representing advances in research and methods.

With extensive photographs to help clearly illustrate concepts, Huber and Headrick's Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals, Second Edition serves as an invaluable reference to law libraries, practicing document examiners, forensic and criminal justice students, and every lawyer handling cases in which the authenticity of handwriting and documents might be disputed.

Chapter 1

History of Forensic Document Examination

1.1 HANDWRITING IDENTIFICATION AND THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

The examination of disputed handwriting may well be the progenitor of forensic science. Certainly it is one of those rare disciplines to have been born as a forensic necessity, rather than as a discipline established first in its own right for other reasons, and later harnessed for forensic tasks. Historical references indicate that the practice of forgery and related frauds involving documents evolved almost as early as the development of writing. In the days of the Roman Empire, the law provided for the acceptance of expert testimony based on documents. It was not until centuries later that such testimony was admitted in English-speaking courts.

1.1.1 Documents and the Rules of Evidence

The relevancy of documents in civil and criminal litigation is largely dependent on their authorship or origin. Numerous ways have evolved to attest to the truthfulness of a writing. Before the origin of the signature, the application of a wax seal served to authenticate the document. The wax seal bonded the ends of a ribbon of fabric which fed through a slit in the paper and was embossed with a personal motif. Later, signatures served the purpose, but additionally, the legal process has tended to also require the signatures of witnesses to the signing.

There have always been situations where unsigned or anonymous writings on documents were potentially important, for example, personal notebooks in which relevant or incriminating information was recorded. The provision of proof regarding the authorship of such documents has long been an issue.

Historically, circumstantial evidence was the vehicle by which authorship was established for many cases. This was used in the absence of witnesses to the act of writing. For many years, courts debated as to what evidence was acceptable. Certainly, the inclination was to seek proof that was independent of the document’s circumstances. As early as the nineteenth century, Wigmore (1896) commented that the idea of handwriting expertise was novel.

In the course of developing an acceptable standard of proof, many related issues surfaced. Should triers of fact (judge or jury) be permitted to compare writings for themselves? If so, what writings could be used as standards? The answer to the first question became affirmative, provided some kind of corroborative evidence was supplied. Corroboration was then sought through the testimony of a recognition witness—someone acquainted with the alleged writer’s handwriting. Recognition witnesses then became the means by which writing standards were authenticated and tendered as evidence. The extent of the acquaintance with a person’s writing and the manner in which it was acquired were without precise boundaries and the evidence offered proved to be unreliable.

Any person having observed another person write, even once or years before, was permitted to testify regarding the authenticity of a writing. Despite the inherent weaknesses in this evidence, shreds of the policy continue to prevail regarding the proof of writing standards. Requirements were then placed upon the standards. They must have some relevance to the matter in dispute and could not simply represent a given person’s writing practices.

The case of Goodtitle d. Revett v. Braham (1792) is said to be the first in English-speaking courts in which specially qualified witnesses were proffered. These witnesses would testify solely from direct comparison between standards and disputed writing rather than from recognition. Their special qualifications were acquired from experience as inspectors of franks. They checked the authenticity of the signatures of MPs and others on mail that was dispatched pursuant to the franking privilege. On that occasion, Lord Kenyon admitted the testimony of two inspectors, on the authority of Folkes v. Chadd (1782) in which Lord Mansfield admitted the expert testimony of an engineer.

The next year the same evidence was refused by the same judge, Lord Kenyon. Not until Massachusetts admitted testimony regarding the comparison of disputed documents with writing standards in 1835 (Moody v. Rowell), and England passed the Common Law Procedure Act in 1854, did the practice become more consistent.

1.1.2 Prior to 1900

By the year 1672, Europeans such as Jacques Raveneau had written on the subject of handwriting identification (Buquet 1981). In the 1800s, the La Ronciere case, the Dreyfuss letters, and the La Boussiniere will, all testified to the endeavor to resolve major issues on the strength of writing examination in that part of the world.

In the North America, Albert S. Osborn (1929) is credited with launching handwriting identification as a distinct discipline at the turn of the twentieth century. Furthermore, he broadened its scope to include typewriting, ink, and paper examinations under the wider umbrella of document examination. Others of his era, such as Hagan (1894), Frazer (1901), Ames (1900), and Lee and Abbey (1922) made their contributions in published form. Osborn’s works (1922, 1929, 1946), however, are still deemed to be the accepted texts of the specialty, although they were not written expressly for that purpose.

While Osborn’s success in gaining acceptance for handwriting identification was achieved largely through his writings, lectures, and testimony, there is no doubt that he derived much assistance from his friendship and association with John H. Wigmore, the eminent authority on American evidence law. Wigmore et al. (1940) held a great personal interest in forensic science and recognized its potential in the court’s search for truth. The claim for document examination as a forensic science can be traced to the oracles of Wigmore (1896), some of which were expressed or quoted in the writings of Osborn just after the turn of the twentieth century.

In Canada, provision was made for handwriting examination evidence in the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854 of England and that those authorities were broadened under the British Criminal Procedure Act of 1865. Remarkably, the Act applied only to civil proceedings. Some courts expressed a preference for expert testimony over lay witness identification of handwriting as early as the 1860s (Reid v. Warner, 1867). The Common Law Procedure Act and the Criminal Procedure Act were superseded by the Canada Evidence Act of 1868 that, with some modification, has continued to provide for the admission of expert testimony respecting handwriting—but respecting handwriting only—for the last 150 years. Authority for the presentation of evidence by the document examiner in areas of his and/or her work, other than handwriting, must be sought in case and common law.

The reason for giving handwriting evidence special attention in the Canada Evidence Act of 1868 illustrates that handwriting experts were probably the first of the forensic experts to make their contribution to the judicial system. In the absence of precedents, special provision had to be made for their admission. Certainly, the Canada Evidence Act of 1868, one of the many early statutes passed after confederation in 1867 when Canada became independent of British rule, merely adopted the provisions of a similar statute on the law books of England from 1856. That being the case, the real reason why handwriting evidence is segregated under the law from other forms of forensic expertise must lie in the history of British law.

1.1.3 The Twentieth Century: The First 40 Years

Notwithstanding the legislation governing its admission into the courts and into a growing volume of judicial decisions, not all members of the legal profession readily accepted the testimony of the expert witness at the turn of the twentieth century. The disparaging manner in which older law literature has referred to their contributions suggests that the vanguard of the profession of forensic scientists left something to be desired in qualification, motivation, or attitude. Wellman (1913) remarked that “expert witnesses become so warped in their judgment … that, even when conscientiously disposed, they are incapable of expressing a candid opinion” (p. 73). Wellman found that experts were shrewd and cunning. Occasionally, the pages of law books dripped with sarcasm from such statements as, “He swears scientifically does the expert” (Wrottesley 1910). Harris (1911) made a classic statement: “You will be amazed at the elaboration of the system for finding out nothing, which has been invented by science” (p. 140).

For writing identification, such skepticism, indeed hostility, is alleged to have stemmed from the often disputed rationale that underlay the admissibility of handwriting expert testimony. Undoubtedly, admission was granted simply on the grounds that experts could not be worse than recognition witnesses (Moody v. Rowell 1835).

While legislation resolved the question of admissibility, opponents continued to argue against handwriting identification on the grounds of weight. Per Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Brown (1878): “All doubts respecting the competency of the opinion of experts in handwriting based upon mere comparison, as evidence, have been removed by statute, but it still must be esteemed proof of low degree.”

A reasonably complete account of the legal history of handwriting identification, as developed and recorded in case law in the United States, may be found in an article by Risinger et al. (1989). Although the article has been criticized for its language, its objective, and for a number of errors and omissions, it presents the beginning of a serious critique of forensic handwriting examination. This in turn led to a reaction of the criticism aimed at the field through published research and standards.

For the most part, the early examiners in North America were sincere, well-intentioned individuals. Despite little training, they had one thing in common: a small collection of the books of Osborn (1929, 1946) and his contemporaries Hagan (1894), Quirke (1930), Ames (1900), and Frazer (1901).

Examiners came from diverse disciplines: bankers, lithographers, engravers, court clerks, and police officers. The greatest number of them was teachers of penmanship and business college instructors. Obviously, it was felt that those who taught penmanship and the preparation of written records were better qualified to discriminate between the writing of different persons. This was because, at a time of strict adherence to copybook styles, there was great similarity in the writing of many people. Furthermore, teachers were able to appreciate the capabilities of the average individual in altering or modifying writing habits.

A second and smaller group included bankers, court clerks, and police officials that developed an interest in document examination, probably as a result of their exposure or involvement in criminal cases. The need for the talents of the document examiner was evident and the availability of such experts was limited.

Initially, document examiners were self-trained. Historically, they did not have educational backgrounds in science and few were called upon in forensic cases more than a few times a year. Certainly, document examination offered few opportunities for full-time employment in North America until the opening of the federal, state, and provincial police laboratories in 1937 and later.

If and when the successful solution of a civil or criminal case demanded it, more than one document examiner would be engaged to examine the evidence. Often, the second examiner would be Albert S. Osborn. Such were the circumstances in the trial of Bruno Richard Hauptmann for the kidnapping and murder of the son of Charles Lindberg, the famous aviator, in 1934. Osborn and seven other examiners testified based on the handwriting of a number of ransom notes, and in so doing, established the legitimacy of writing identification in the eyes of the public. On such occasions, examiners would share experiences, learn from one another, and develop their competence. Osborn was a teacher, a stimulus, and an encouragement to those who were less practiced. Out of these unstructured beginnings, the profession of the document examiner slowly emerged.

Undoubtedly, the growth and development of the profession was not too different in Canada from that of the United States. In North America, police or government forensic laboratories established standards for the work, formalized their own training curriculum, and pursued limited programs of research to assemble much-needed knowledge. However, these institutions were few in number and all had very modest resources.

1.1.4 1940 to 1975

The development of the manual typewriter, the advent of the ball point pen, the introduction of the electric typewriter, and the evolution of the electronic age significantly affected document examination. They profoundly changed the means by which society communicated and recorded its information. The profession of teachers of handwriting diminished. Penmanship was at one time tenaciously taught and diligently practiced. It is, however, no longer extolled as an important student achievement. Writing enjoys greater latitude in learning methods and wider variation in the end product. Whereas the objective in years past was to ensure legibility for the benefit of others, the goal now seems to be to provide a convenient process for note taking, with readability chiefly for the writer. Communications and records are matters for machines; therefore, the approach to writing identification has had to be modified significantly.

The forensic science services that have developed since 1940 have established document examination laboratories in most of the major cities across the land. All are administered by the government authorities responsible, directly or indirectly, for law enforcement in the area. For the most part, the services have been available free of charge to law enforcement agencies at all levels.

1.1.5 1975 till Present

Since the 1980s, the widespread use of computer and digital technology has changed the field of document and handwriting examination in two fundamental ways: (1) the analysis of computerized or electronic documents, and (2) the computerized or digital equipment that d...