Manual de Boas Práticas-Handwriting-Ed.-4

ENFSI-BPM-FHX-01 (Ed.
04) BPM for the Forensic Handwriting Examination
Best Practice Manual

for the
Forensic Handwriting Examination
ENFSI-BPM-FHX-01
Edition 04 – September 2022
ENFSI-BPM-FHX-01 (Ed. 04) BPM for the Forensic Handwriting Examination
ENFSI’s position on Best Practice Manuals

ENFSI wishes to promote the improvement of mutual trust by encouraging forensic
harmonisation through the development and use of Best Practice Manuals.
Furthermore, ENFSI encourages sharing Best Practice Manuals with the whole
Forensic Science Community which also includes non ENFSI Members.
Visit www.enfsi.eu/documents/bylaws for more information. It includes the ENFSI
policy document Policy on Creation of Best Practice Manuals within ENFSI (code:
QCC-BPM-001).
European Union’s Internal Security Fund — Police

This edition of the Best Practice Manual for the Forensic Handwriting Examination
was funded in part by the European Union’s Internal Security Fund – Police.
The content of this Best practice Manual represents the views of the authors only and
is (his/her) sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any
responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.
Official language
The text may be translated into other languages as required. The English language
edition remains the definitive version.
Copyright
The copyright of this text is held by ENFSI. The text may not be copied for resale.
Further information
For further information about this publication, contact the ENFSI Secretariat. Please
check the website of ENFSI (www.enfsi.eu) for update information.
BEST PRACTICE MANUAL FOR THE

FORENSIC HANDWRITING EXAMINATION
DOCUMENT TYPE: REF. CODE: ISSUE NO: ISSUE DATE:
BPM ENFSI-BPM-FHX 4 01/09/2022
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. AIMS …………………………………………………………………………. 3
2. SCOPE ………………………………………………………………………. 3
3. DEFINITIONS AND TERMS ….……………………….……………… 4
4. RESOURCES ……………………………………………………………… 4
4.1 Personnel ……………………………………………………………………… 4
4.2 Equipment …………………………………………………………………….. 6
4.3 Reference materials ………………………………………………………….. 6
4.4 Facilities and environmental conditions ………………….………………… 6
4.5 Materials and Reagents ……………………………………………………... 6
5. METHODS ………………………………………………………………….. 6
5.1 Anti-contamination protocols …………………………………………………… 6
5.2 Examination Techniques and Methods ………………………………………… 7
5.3 Analysis Protocols ……………………………………………………………… 7
5.4 Case Records ………………………………………………………………….. 7
5.5 Peer Review ……………………………………………………………………. 8
6. VALIDATION AND MEASUREMENT OF UNCERTAINTY….. 9
6.1 Validation……………………………………………………………………….. 8
6.2 Estimation of uncertainty of measurement …………………………………….. 8
7. QUALITY ASSURANCE .……………………………………………… 10
8. HANDLING ITEMS ………………………………………………………. 11
9. INITIAL ASSESSMENT …………………………………………………. 11
9.1 Introduction . …………………………………………………………………….. 11
9.2 Assessment at the laboratory …………………………………………………… 11
10. PRIORITISATION AND SEQUENCE OF EXAMINATIONS … 12
10.1 General considerations ……………………………………………………………… 12
10.2 Considerations for forensic handwriting examinations …………………………. 12
11. RECONSTRUCTION OF EVENTS …………………………………… 12
12. EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION …………………………... 12
13. PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE ……………………………………. 13
13.1 General …………………………………………………………………………. 13
13.2 Written evidence ………………………………………………………………… 13
13.3 Oral evidence …………………………………………………………………… 14
14. HEALTH AND SAFETY ………………………………………………… 14
15. BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………….. 14
15.1 English language texts ……………………………………………………………….. 14
15.2 German language texts ………………………………………………………………. 15
16. AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUS EDITION ..…….…………………. 15
1/118
APPENDIX 1 - KEY KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS FOR FORENSIC

HANDWRITING EXAMINATION ……………………………………..………… 16
APPENDIX 2 - TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF FORENSIC

HANDWRITING EXAMINERS …………………………………….................... 20
APPENDIX 3 - OVERVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FORENSIC

HANDWRITING EXAMINATIONS AND COMPARISONS …………….. 25
APPENDIX 4 - COMPARISON PHASE OF A FORENSIC

HANDWRITING EXAMINATION ………………………………………………. 38
APPENDIX 5 - EVALUATION PHASE OF A FORENSIC

HANDWRITING EXAMINATION …………..…………………………………… 53

EXAMINATIONS AND COMPARISONS OF DIGITALLY CAPTURED
SIGNATURES AND HANDWRITTEN ENTRIES …………………………. 74
APPENDIX 7 - SAMPLING ………………………………………………………. 97
APPENDIX 8 - TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN

FORENSIC HANDWRITING EXAMINATION ……………………...…….….108
APPENDIX A - AMENDMENTS AGAINST PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF

THE APPENDICES ..……………………………………………………………..….119
2/118
1. AIMS
This Best Practice Manual (BPM) aims to provide a framework of procedures, quality
principles, training processes and approaches to the forensic examination of
handwriting. This BPM can be used by Member laboratories of ENFSI and other
forensic science laboratories to establish and maintain working practices in the field of
forensic handwriting examination that will deliver reliable results, maximize the quality
of the information obtained and produce robust evidence. The use of consistent
methodology and the production of more comparable results will facilitate interchange
of data between laboratories.
The term BPM is used to reflect the scientifically accepted practices at the time of
creating. Despite its implicit suggestion that alternative, equivalent Practice Manuals
are excluded at beforehand, in this series of ENFSI Practice Manuals the term BPM
has been maintained for reasons of continuity and recognition.
2. SCOPE
This BPM is aimed at experts in the field and assumes prior knowledge in the discipline.
It is not a standard operating procedure and addresses the requirements of the judicial
systems in general terms only.
Due to the fact that the terms “forensic handwriting examination” and “graphology” (or
“Judicial Graphology” or “Forensic Graphology”) are frequently confused and given
(wrongly attributed) equivalence, sometimes even within judiciary, it is to be stressed
that there is a clear difference between them. While they both focus on handwriting
(including signatures) and the process of writing, the questions they answer and the
methods they use are entirely different.
Forensic handwriting examination, just as many other forensic disciplines, aims for
identification of a person based upon a trace they leave. Just as in forensic DNA or
fingerprint analysis the identification derives from uniqueness of the genome or the
pattern of ridges on a skin, forensic handwriting examination deals with a trace that
exhibits individual neuromuscular behaviour of a person. This discipline does not make
any assumptions about the relationship between handwriting characteristics and
personality because the analysis of personal traits has no relevance to writer
identification.
Graphology on the other hand, includes inferring character traits or intelligence of the
person from interpreting the handwriting characteristics.
It is not the task of a forensic handwriting examiner to deal with the validity of a
graphological diagnosis, and possible explanations, and it is not the role of a
graphologist to form opinions on the authorship of handwriting. Therefore, ENFHEX
does not support the use of this Best Practice Manual, in full or part, to validate the role
of a graphologist within the forensic environment.
Documents, of various types, are routinely encountered in casework and are required
to be examined for a number of reasons (see Appendix 1 – Key Knowledge
Requirements for Forensic Handwriting Examination). The examination of these
3/118
documents may reveal information which is invaluable to the investigation of a crime,

or which may provide evidence which indicates that a crime has been committed.
This guidance document covers the process from the receipt of the test items into the
“handwriting laboratory” to the presentation of evidence in the courts. As such it
encompasses the systems, the procedures, the personnel, the equipment and the
facilities and environmental conditions required for forensic handwriting examination.
The law enforcement framework and the legal systems within which a forensic
laboratory is working will determine the degree of direct control that individual
practitioners have over each stage of a process. Where the practitioner is not directly
involved in any particular stage they should still be in possession of sufficient
knowledge to ensure the maintenance of good scientific practice.
3. DEFINITIONS AND TERMS

For the purposes of this Best Practice Manual (BPM), the relevant terms and definitions
given in ENFSI documents, the ILAC G19 “Modules in Forensic Science Process”, as
in standards like ISO 9000, ISO 17000, ISO 17020 and ISO 17025 apply. In this section
only the field specific terms and definitions, which assist in the interpretation of this
BPM, are listed.
Forensic Handwriting Examiner - An individual that undertakes a Forensic Handwriting

Examination. This includes both Reporting Scientists and Analysts/Assistants.
Forensic Handwriting Examination - The scientific examination and comparison of

handwritten documents to determine whether or not two or more pieces of handwriting
have been completed by one individual. This includes authentication of one or more
questioned (Qn) signatures by comparison with a set of known (Kn) signatures.
4. RESOURCES
4.1 Personnel
People are likely to be the most important resource in any forensic application and in
order to allow staff to work effectively and efficiently everybody concerned in the
process must understand the nature of the tasks and the human qualities required to
perform them. It is accepted that individual organisations will recruit Forensic
Handwriting Examiners in accordance with the requirements of that organisation (and
this may include legal considerations as well as academic qualifications or work
experiences). As such it is acknowledged that Forensic Handwriting Examiners will
have a wide variety of experience, training and background knowledge. All of these
can be obtained through a range of different processes, but should include the criteria
detailed in Appendix 1 - "Key Knowledge Requirements for Forensic Handwriting
Examination”.
4.1.1 Roles and responsibilities

The key roles for forensic handwriting examinations are:
 Reporting Scientist – The forensic scientist responsible in a particular

case for directing the examination of the items submitted, interpreting the
4/118
findings, writing the report and providing evidence of fact, and opinion,
for the court.
 Analyst/Assistant – An individual carrying out general casework

examinations or analytical tests under the supervision of a Reporting
Scientist and who is able to provide information to assist with the
interpretation of the tests.
Both of these roles can be carried out by the same individual.
4.1.2 Competence requirements

The qualifications, competences and experience that individuals require to
carry out the various aspects of forensic handwriting examination will depend
on the intellectual and practical demands of the various aspects of the work.
Appendix 1 – “Key Knowledge Requirements for Forensic Handwriting
Examination” details the general levels of knowledge required for individuals
to undertake the particular aspects of work, whilst Appendix 2 - “Training
Requirements for Forensic Handwriting Examiners” details the training
requirements and the assessments that will be applied.
The following experience and areas of competence would be expected as the

minimum standard for the key roles defined above, in forensic handwriting
examination:
 Reporting Scientist - Knowledge of the theories, analytical techniques

and procedures applicable to forensic handwriting examination;
competence in the evaluation and interpretation of findings in
handwriting cases; knowledge and experience of the requirements and
procedures of the criminal justice system for the presentation of
evidence, both written and oral
 Analyst/Assistant - Knowledge of the theories, analytical techniques and

procedures applicable to forensic handwriting examination; the practical
skills to operate specialist equipment and to carry out forensic
handwriting analysis safely and reliably in compliance with laboratory
protocols; an understanding of the requirements of the criminal justice
system
4.1.3 Training and Assessment

The levels of training and assessment are dependent on the role being
undertaken; however the following must be addressed in developing a training
and assessment programme:
 laboratories should have written standards of competence for each role, a

documented training programme and processes for assessing that
trainees have achieved the level of competence required;
 all training should be completed within the specified time frame and the
outcome of assessments documented on the individual's training records;
5/118
 the assessment of competence can be accomplished through a

combination of appropriate means, including:
 practical tests
 written and/or oral examinations
 role exercises (for example "mock" courts)
 casework conducted under close supervision
 a portfolio of previous work
A trainee should only be recognised as competent when he or she has been

assessed as meeting the defined standards of performance and only then be
permitted to undertake independent casework in the relevant area. A record of
the assessment date and result of the assessment should be added to the
relevant training record. All personnel involved in the field of forensic
handwriting examination will also be required to demonstrate that they have
maintained their competence at regular intervals (for example with the use of
collaborative exercises or proficiency tests).
4.2 Equipment
4.2.1 The principle equipment required for forensic handwriting examination is a
suitable form of magnification (such as a stereo-zoom microscope).
4.2.2 Other instrumentation (see Appendix 3 section 7), often falling within the remit
of forensic document examination, may assist the Forensic Handwriting
Examiner. This is not covered within this documentation.
4.2.3 Only appropriate and properly operating equipment should be employed in

casework, and then only within the limits of the performance checks carried
out.
4.3 Reference materials

No specific requirements
4.4 Facilities and environmental conditions

The principle considerations for forensic handwriting examination are the need for
sufficient, secure workspace to allow for efficient and effective working and the need
for good quality lighting, preferably natural daylight.
When necessary correct anti-contamination procedures must be used to prevent

cross-contamination.
4.5 Materials and Reagents

No specific requirements
5. METHODS
5.1 Anti-Contamination Procedures
All items submitted for forensic handwriting examinations should first be examined for
the integrity of their packaging. Any deficiency in the packaging, which may
compromise the value of a laboratory examination, should be noted, and the customer
6/118
informed. Such a deficiency may be grounds for refusal to carry out the laboratory
examination.
Where applicable staff should wear suitable protective clothing to minimise the risk of
accidentally leaving trace evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA, on the items being
examined.
5.2 Examination Techniques and Methods

Whilst it is accepted that individual organisations will have their own, accredited
methods, the principle of each method should be carried out in accordance with the
recommendations in the appendices to this Manual (Appendix 3 - “Overview Procedure
for Forensic Handwriting Examinations and Comparisons”).
5.3 Analysis Protocols

The actual work that is carried out in individual cases should be determined by the
requirements of the case and will depend on the value of any other evidence which
may be available. But a systematic approach should always be adopted, to ensure
consistency of delivery of services that are fit for purpose.
Whatever work is done, the Forensic Handwriting Examiner should always use the
combination of techniques available that offers the greatest potential for recovering
any forensically viable information, taking into account the nature of the work to be
undertaken.
The choice of the most suitable methods of examination can only be made at the time
of the initial assessment by the Forensic Handwriting Examiner involved. Given the
same case circumstances, all laboratories would ideally adopt the same analysis
protocol, but in practice the extent to which such harmonisation can be achieved will
be limited. This protocol can thus act only as a guide.
Non-destructive tests should be given priority.
5.4 Case Records

The exact requirements for recording casework information will depend on the legal
system of the country/state of jurisdiction. As a minimum, however, the records should
be in sufficient detail to allow another Forensic Handwriting Examiner, competent in
the same area of expertise, to identify what has been done and to verify the findings.
For casework involving the forensic handwriting examination, the records should
include details of:
 the items that were submitted to the laboratory, the information

accompanying the items on submission and the nature of the work
requested
 the method of submission (e.g. by hand, by post, etc.), by whom and on
what date(s)
 all movement of casework material within the laboratory system, the
person(s) responsible for the movement and the date(s) the movements
took place
 the method of return of items to the submitting organisation (e.g. by hand,
by post, etc.), by whom and on what date(s)
7/118
 any changes, or additions to the items

 all communications within the laboratory and between the laboratory and
the submitting organisation about the case
 for each item examined, the labelling, method of packaging and integrity
of packaging on receipt
 what examinations have been carried out, when, in what order, where and
by whom
 all observations made, photographs taken and analytical data generated
 the specific examination methods and procedures used
 all draft and final reports or statements generated
 administrative and technical review, when and by whom
Wherever possible, written records should be made on standardised forms, examples

of which are shown in the relevant appendices.
5.5 Peer Review

It is important within forensic handwriting examinations that the results of any
examinations undergo Peer Review. The Peer Review will cover, as a minimum, the
Critical Findings in the case. The Peer Review should also cover the Technical
Findings.
5.5.1 Critical Findings

Whilst the exact legal requirements may be different for different organisations,
in general findings of critical evidential value should be confirmed by a second
Reporting Scientist who has been authorised and is competent to carry out
such checking procedures. Findings are considered critical when:
 they make a significant contribution to the findings in the case, and

 are incapable of being confirmed at a later time, or are subject to possible
differences in interpretation by different Reporting Scientists.
A record of these checking procedures should be made within the case notes,
bearing the signatures (handwritten or electronic) of both the Reporting
Scientist and the reviewer.
Where critical findings have not been reviewed, the submitting body should be
informed that the results are preliminary.
5.5.2 Technical Findings

The technical findings are the results of the examination(s). These findings
must be justified and supported by documentation within the casefile. Areas
that should be covered by the technical review include:
 is there adequate documentation for all the materials examined

 have the appropriate examinations/analyses been carried out
 have the relevant Quality Assurance (QA) procedures been followed
 have analytical identifications/comparisons been checked
 is the statement/report accurate and does it refer to all items submitted
8/118
6. VALIDATION AND ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY
6.1 Validation
The laboratory should, where possible, only use validated techniques and procedures
for the forensic handwriting examination and the interpretation of their significance in
the context of the case.
6.1.1 Validation requires as a minimum that:
 there is an agreed requirement for the technique or procedure;

 the critical aspects of the technique or procedure have been identified and
the limitations defined;
 the methods, materials and equipment used have been demonstrated to
be fit for purpose in meeting the requirement;
 there are appropriate quality control and quality assurance procedures in
place for monitoring performance;
 the technique or procedure is fully documented;
 the results obtained are reliable and reproducible;
 the technique or procedure has been subjected to independent
assessment and, where novel, peer review;
 the individuals using the technique or procedure have demonstrated that
they have been trained and have demonstrated that they are competent.
6.1.2 Where the techniques or procedures have been validated elsewhere, the
laboratory is required to carry out a verification exercise to demonstrate that it
can achieve the same quality of results in its own environment.
6.2 Estimation of uncertainty of measurement

Whilst it can be accepted that within forensic handwriting comparisons Forensic
Handwriting Examiners do not routinely make the sort of measurements described in
paragraph 5.4.6 of ISO 17025, the standard indicates that:
 any laboratory should at least attempt to identify all the components of

uncertainty and make a reasonable estimation of the uncertainty
 and that any reasonable estimation should be based on knowledge of the
performance of the method. This should make use of, for example,
previous experience and validation data.
As such it is necessary to demonstrate that the issue of "uncertainty components" is

addressed. Consideration should be given to each of these components when the
Forensic Handwriting Examiner is assessing the material as part of their examination,
including:
6.2.1 Sample size - The results (and strength of the results) of any handwriting and
signature examinations may depend on the amount of material submitted for
comparison. The results also depend on other criteria such as the complexity
of the handwriting and the stylisation of the signature.
9/118
6.2.2 Quality of material examined - The quality of the submitted material will have
an intrinsic effect on any examination. The following list indicates a number of
instances where this will occur:
 Handwriting that has been submitted as photocopies, photographs or

scans does not possess all of the detail present in original handwriting
 Inks that have been treated with a solvent are more difficult to differentiate
than un-treated inks
 Non-standard writing tools and/or surfaces (such as sprays, paint and
outdoor surfaces)
6.2.3 Complexity of handwriting/signatures - Handwriting and signature

examinations and comparisons, and the results of those examinations and
comparisons, depend significantly on the relative complexity or stylisation of
the handwriting or signatures.
6.2.4 Human error - There are a number of circumstances where human error can
be critical. To counter these, consideration should be taken to address each of
the potential areas, for example:
 Training - all examiners undergo a formal, scheduled and detailed, training

programme, during which their progress is monitored and assessed.
Where errors or misidentifications are made, the trainee is made aware of
those misidentifications or errors, and any corrective actions undertaken.
 Competency - the competency of each practitioner is routinely checked
and monitored against a set of specified criteria.
 Procedures - standard operating procedures are in place to ensure a
uniformity and conformity of approach to each examination. These
procedures are used during the training programme, and the work of the
trainee and other members of staff are periodically reviewed against these
procedures.
 Repeat analysis - examinations are carried out independently by a second
practitioner. The results of both practitioners are subsequently discussed,
and a consensus result reached (this is usually, but not exclusively, in
agreement with the more cautious set of results). Occasionally, where the
examination may be more complicated or result in more contentious
findings, the material is given to a third practitioner for their opinion.
 Collaborative Exercises/Proficiency Testing (CE/PT) - the ability of each
examiner is tested regularly, over the range of examinations undertaken,
using external CE/PTs. The reported results are assessed against the
"known" answers, and any areas of disagreement are discussed and any
corrective actions undertaken.
7. QUALITY ASSURANCE
Proficiency tests should be used to test and assure the quality of Forensic Handwriting
Examinations. A list of currently available CE/PT schemes as put together by the
Quality and Competence Committee (QCC) is available on the ENFSI website.
“Guidance on the conduct of proficiency tests and collaborative exercises within
ENFSI” provides information for the ENFSI Expert Working Groups (EWGs) on how to
10/118
organise effective proficiency tests (PTs) and collaborative exercises (CEs) for their
members.
Forensic Handwriting Examiners should participate in regular externally generated

proficiency tests. Participants in the test should follow the standard laboratory
procedures for casework. They should not give the test any special treatment that
would not be given in the same circumstances to casework.
The laboratory QA Manager should be informed of all CE/PTs undertaken.
Any results not in accordance with the expected outcome should be brought to the
attention of the laboratory QA Manager as soon as possible.
8. HANDLING ITEMS
The examiner must ensure that any alterations to items within their possession are in
accordance with the customer’s requirements and are recorded within the casenotes.
The examiner must ensure that, whilst within their possession, there is no
contamination (for example extraneous fingerprints and/or DNA) to items that might
require further examination.
The examiner must consider the potential health hazards with the item (see paragraph
14) and take the appropriate precautions when handling any relevant items.
9. INITIAL ASSESSMENT
9.1 Introduction
In general all casework should undergo an initial case assessment to determine the
suitability of the material for examination and the applicability of material submitted
before any examination is undertaken.
9.2 Assessment at the laboratory

Before starting work on any case the examiner should carry out an assessment of the
information available and the items provided for examination in light of the agreed
customer requirement. The examiner should seek to redress any deficiencies through
consultation with the customer.
Any work carried out will be to meet a particular customer requirement. At each stage,
however, it is important that the course of action selected is based on an assessment
of both the propositions put forward by the customer and the known alternative(s) to
this.
The examiner should also make an assessment of the risk of contamination, or any
other issue that could affect the integrity of the items before examination commences.
The examiner should then consider to what extent the proposition put forward by the
customer can be tested and should also frame at least one alternative proposition
favourable to the ‘defence’.
11/118
The examiner should consider what they might expect to find if each proposition was
correct and should make an assessment of the strength of the findings.
10. PRIORITISATION AND SEQUENCE OF EXAMINATIONS

Where there is more than one item and/or evidence type involved in the examination
of a case then priorities and sequences for the examinations will need to be
considered.
Before commencing any examinations within a case the following matters should be
considered:
 the urgency and priority of the customer’s need for specific aspects of the
information
 the other types of forensic examination which may have to be carried out
 which evidential types or items have the potential to provide the most
information in response to the various propositions and alternatives
 the perishable nature of any material that may be present
 health and safety or security considerations
10.1 Considerations for forensic handwriting examinations

The Forensic Handwriting Examiner must consider the most appropriate sequence of
examinations, the implications of which will have to be considered in conjunction with:
 the availability of items for examination

 the amount of material, within the items, available for examination
 the potential value of the information available from each examination and
the impact this has on the various propositions
11. RECONSTRUCTION
Not applicable
12. EVALUATION AND INTERPRETATION

When attributing the authorship of a piece of handwriting and/or signature, a number
of propositions must be considered during the evaluation (see Appendix 5) as well as
the interpretation of all of the information received and gathered relating to a specific
examination process.
Each hypothesis must be considered equally against:
 the background information available about the case and the original
expectations formulated during case assessment
 the significance of any findings from the examination
12/118
and an overall opinion formed related to the degree of support of the findings towards
a proposition (over a specified alternative proposition).
13. PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

13.1 General
The overriding duty of those providing expert testimony is to the court and to the
administration of justice. As such, evidence should be provided with honesty, integrity,
objectivity and impartiality.
Evidence can be presented in court either orally or in writing. Only information which
is supported by the examinations carried out should be presented. Presentation of
evidence should clearly state the results of any evaluation and interpretation of the
examination.
The Reporting Scientist’s findings and opinions are normally provided, in the first
instance, in written form, as a report or statement of witness, for use by the investigator
and/or the prosecutor/court. Oral evidence may subsequently be required.
13.2 Written evidence

Written reports should include all the relevant information in a clear, concise, structured
and unambiguous manner as required by the relevant legal process. Written reports
must be peer reviewed.
Whilst formal advice is available on the format of reports and statements, the scope for
consistency may be limited by the requirements of the criminal justice system for the
country of jurisdiction. In general, however the following should be included:
 the unique case identifier

 the name and address of the laboratory(s) where the Forensic Handwriting
Examiner is employed
 the identity of the Forensic Handwriting Examiner(s), and evidence of their
status and qualifications where this is a requirement
 the signature of the Forensic Handwriting Examiner (s)
 the date on which the report/statement of Forensic Handwriting Examiner
(s) was signed
 the date of receipt of the material that has been examined
 the name and status of the submitter
 a list of the material submitted, identified by source
 the questions to be addressed
 if relevant a comment relating to the condition of submitted material and
its packaging when received, particularly where there is evidence of
alteration, either by tampering, damage, contamination or any other means
 details of all relevant information received with, or in addition to the
material
 the purpose of the examination
 details of the examinations/analyses carried out
 the results of the examination/analyses
13/118
 an assessment of the significance of the results in the context of the

information provided
 the witness' expert opinion, where appropriate, and any findings which
may influence it
 comment covering any material that was not examined, and the reasons
for this
 details of any submitted material, or parts of such material, not being
returned to the submitter, and the reasons why
 a page numbering system (for example in the format “Page x of y”)
The use of tables and/or photographic charts or illustrations, including interpretations

and original data, can be a helpful aid in presenting the information clearly.
13.3 Oral evidence

Persons expected to present oral testimony should have received instruction and/or
mentoring in the procedural requirements of the particular criminal justice system in
which the evidence is to be presented.
Only information which is supportable by the examinations carried out should be

presented.
When giving oral evidence the Forensic Handwriting Examiner should resist
responding to questions that take them outside their field of expertise unless
specifically directed by the court, and even then a declaration as to the limitations of
their expertise should be made.
14. HEALTH AND SAFETY

There are occasional health hazard issues with items submitted for forensic
handwriting examination, including biological contamination (for example excrement or
biological powders) and chemical contamination (fingerprint treatment reagents).
Caution must be taken when examining these types of items, and occasionally no
examination can be undertaken.
15. BIBLIOGRAPHY
There are many books, journals and individual papers published on the subject of
Forensic Handwriting Examinations. It is impossible to compile a complete list of all of
these. The following list contains some of the significant publications that relate to the
examination of Handwriting.
15.1 English language texts
Caligiuri, M., & Mohammed, L.

The Neuroscience of Handwriting: Applications for Forensic Document Examination.
Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2012
14/118
Ellen, D., Day, S. & Davies, C.

Scientific Examination of Documents - Methods and Technique. 4th Edition, CRC
Press, London, 2018
Harralson, H.H. & Miller L.

Developments in Handwriting and Signature Identification in the Digital Age.
Routledge, 2012
Harralson H.H., Miller L.S.,

Huber & Headrick’s Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals. 2nd Edition,
CRC Press, New York, 2021
Harrison, W.R.
Suspect Documents. Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1958 and 1966
Hilton, O.
Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents. Elsevier, New York, 1982
Kelly J.S. & Lindblom B.S.

Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents. CRC Press, New York 2006
Mohammed, L. A.
Forensic examination of signatures. London: Academic Press, 2019
Morris, R.N.
Forensic Handwriting Identification - Fundamental concepts and principles. Academic
Press, London, 2000
Osborn, A.S.
Questioned Documents. Boyd, Albany, New York, 1929
15.2 German language texts
Michel, L.
Gerichtliche Schriftvergleichung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 1982
Hecker, M.R.
Forensische Handschriftenuntersuchung. Heidelberg: Kriminalistik-Verlag, 1993
Conrad, W. & Stier, B.

Grundlagen, Methoden und Ergebnisse der Forensischen Schriftuntersuchung.
Lübeck: Schmidt-Römhild, 1989
16. AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUS EDITION
15/118
APPENDIX 1 - KEY KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS FOR FORENSIC

HANDWRITING EXAMINATION
1. SCOPE
1.1 All analysis involving the forensic examination and comparison of handwriting
and signatures, both original and non-original.
1.2 The purpose of the examination is to determine whether or not there is

evidence that two or more pieces of handwriting (including signatures) have a
common authorship (that is to say “Is there any evidence that these pieces of
handwriting were written by the same person?”).
1.3 The approach relies on a visual examination of the characteristics of the

handwriting or signatures, and an assessment of the similarities and
differences found between pieces of handwriting.
2. DETAILED KNOWLEDGE
2.1 Forensic Handwriting Examiners performing these examinations should have
detailed knowledge of the following, gained through a comprehensive and
documented training programme:
2.1.1 Pertaining to Analysis:
 Usage of minimum instrumentation (microscope, oblique light, IR

luminescence and absorbance)
 Quality and quantity of handwriting (questioned and known)
 Grouping - management of large cases
 Different writing implements and inks (ball point, gel, liquid, pencil)
 Recognising copies (prints, contact copies)
 Systems of handwriting
o Different alphabets (e.g. Roman, Greek, Cyrillic, Arabic etc.)
 Styles of handwriting/Classification systems
o Upper-case
o Cursive lower-case
o Disconnected lower-case
o Mixed writing forms
o Numerals
o Signatures (legible, illegible)
o Graffiti
 Determination of general, individual (specific) and class characteristics
 Determination of pen-path
 Determination of fluency
o Variation in pen-pressure
o Tapering ends in individual characters
o Connectivity between characters
o Effects of speed in handwriting
Appendix 1 16/118
 Effects of copying
o Freehand
o Tracing
o Transferred / Transposed signatures (e.g. photocopies)
 Effects of disguise
o Types of disguise (e.g. stencil, fluency)
o Maintenance of disguise within both known and questioned writing
2.1.2 Pertaining to Comparison:
 Variations in handwriting
o Within a piece of handwriting
o Between two pieces of handwriting
o Accidental variation
o Long-term development of handwriting
 Graphic Maturity
o Effects of complexity
o Illiteracy
 External factors affecting handwriting such as
o Writing position and writing surface
o Visibility and lightning conditions
o Motion
o Guided / Assisted hand signatures
 Internal factors affecting handwriting such as
o Illness and medication
o Alcohol
o Drugs
o Handedness
o Infirmity and age
o Stress
 Definitions of similarities and differences
 Correct sampling techniques
o Requested handwriting
 Dictate
 Correct writing style
 Sufficient quantity
 Disguise
o Course of business handwriting
 Different sources
 Verification/identification
 Contemporaneous sampling covering the relevant time period
 Benefits of correct sampling process
2.1.3 Pertaining to Evaluation:
 Considerations
o Significance of similarities and differences
o Chance resemblance
o Simulation
Appendix 1 17/118
o Disguise
o Limited populations
o Class characteristics (foreign writing)
o Individual/general characteristics
o Quantity and quality of handwriting
o Limitations of copies
 Evaluative reporting
o The use of probability as a measure of uncertainty
o Formulation of propositions
o Bayesian framework
o Likelihood ratio
o Different types of bias (for example cognitive bias)
 Different styles of conclusion scales in common usage
o Certainty of conclusions and probabilities
 Presentation of evidence
o Orally
o In written format
2.1.4 Pertaining to Digitally Captured Signatures:
 Handling and preservation of electronic evidence

 Division of responsibilities between FHE and Forensic IT experts
 Understanding process underlying acquisition of a DCS
 Use of software designed to capture, extract and analyse DCSs
 Making use of information coded in metadata
 Knowing the different ways of encoding the characteristics of handwriting
movements
 Comprehending the notion of local and global features
 Developed skills to plot and interpret DCSs illustrations and graphs
 Awareness of limitations concerning comparison and evaluation of both
general and individual characteristics
3 GENERAL AWARENESS
3.1 Forensic Handwriting Examiners should also be able to demonstrate an
awareness of the following:
 Basic knowledge of hand anatomy

 Basic knowledge of motor memory and motor learning process
 Teaching methods for handwriting and taught styles
 Distinguishing graphology from forensic handwriting examination
 Electronic systems for handwriting classification and retrieval
o FISH
o Graphlog
o CEDAR-FOX
o FlashID
 Electronic signature verification
 Challenges to forensic handwriting examinations
o 1993 US court decision in Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
Appendix 1 18/118
 Five critical considerations for admissibility of expert evidence

o How to prepare for a challenge on the scientific nature of handwriting
comparisons
 Various arguments governing the uniqueness of handwriting
 Non-destructive document examination methods
o Indented impressions
o Lighting and filtering techniques
 Absorbance (Visual & infra-red)
 Luminescence (Visual, infra-red & ultra-violet)
o Printing processes
 Non-impact printing
 Impact printing
o Commercial printing processes
o Simple paper examinations
 Use of lighting techniques
 Shredded documents
 Watermarks
 Partially destructive document examination methods, including
o Thin layer chromatography
o FTIR
o Raman
o SEM
 Other forensic examinations that may be impacted upon by a forensic
handwriting examination
o Fingerprint enhancement techniques
o DNA examinations
1
Appendix 1 19/118
APPENDIX 2 – TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR FORENSIC

HANDWRITING EXAMINERS
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 This appendix details the requirements for the training of both a Reporting
Scientist and an Analyst/Assistant (see paragraph 4.1.1. of the “Guidelines for
Best Practice in the Forensic Handwriting Examination”).
1.2 Whilst it is recognized the length of time taken to train a Reporting Scientist and
an Analyst/Assistant is dependent on each individual organization, it is
important that a number of significant steps and milestones is addressed in the
training programme.
1.3 This document does not cover other aspects of the trainees training (including
background information on other forensic activities and the role of a Forensic
Scientist at court).
2. GENERAL INTRODUCTION
2.1 Each organization must:
 Generate an individual training programme for each new trainee that covers
the whole training period of the trainee. An example of a suitable Training
Programme is shown at the end of this Appendix.
 Ensure that all relevant aspects of the “Key Knowledge Requirements for
Forensic Handwriting Examination” (Appendix 1) are covered within the
training programme.
 Ensure that there is a periodic assessment of the development of the
trainee as a Forensic Handwriting Examiner.
 Ensure that there is a clear and unambiguous process of final assessment
of the capabilities of the trainee.
 Ensure that there is on-going training and assessment of all Forensic
Handwriting Examiners within your organization.
2.2 The duration of the training period shall be determined by the laboratory
management in conjunction with the trainee.
3. PHASE 1 - INITIAL TRAINING

3.1 Prior to commencing training, all trainees must have a general overview of the
training programme, including a defined timetable with significant milestones.
3.2 During the initial period of training, all trainees should be introduced to:
 The specific methodology used within the organisation

 Referenced textbooks and relevant journals and scientific papers
 Test item handling
 Use of relevant instrumentation
Appendix 3 20/118
 Basic notetaking, including the use of specific forms (if relevant)
4. PHASE 2 – USE OF TRAINING CASES/MOCK MATERIAL

4.1 Use of specifically generated material (with known results) to examine specific
features encountered within handwriting, for example:
 types of handwriting including
 Natural handwriting
 Disguised handwriting
 Copied/simulated handwriting
 types of writing instrument
 levels and features of fluency
 differences in individual character construction, and combinations of
characters
4.2 The purpose of this section of the training is to install the knowledge of the
significance of individual characteristics as opposed to class characteristics
4.3 This section of the training programme will also introduce the comparison
process as well as introducing the trainee to the wide variations in
characteristics encountered in handwriting.
5. PHASE 3 - INTRODUCTION TO CASEWORK MATERIAL

5.1 This phase introduces the trainee to the critical aspects of examining casework
material, including
 Introduction to any relevant casework management systems employed by

the organisation
 Understanding the purpose of submission and identifying what the potential
outcomes of the examination may be
 Determining that suitable and relevant material has been submitted and
determining what other material may be required to complete the
examination
 Awareness of the other forensic opportunities that may be available,
including other aspects of forensic document examination
 Awareness of the impact of the examinations on other areas of forensic
science, including any potential contamination issues
 Assessment of known and questioned material for internal consistency
6. PHASE 4 - CONSOLIDATION
6.1 This phase of the training is critical as it will introduce the trainee to the wide-
range of material submitted to the laboratory and will involve many separate
examinations, potentially involving many different case examples.
6.2 Features to be encountered at this stage will also include:
 Introduction to various types of material

Appendix 3 21/118
 Introduction to various case situations, including both size and complexity,

and how they can be managed
 Awareness of relevant databases including IHIS (which includes
international copybook styles and handwriting samples)
 Introduction to the relevant conclusion scales
 Preparation of forensic reports, including court comparison charts
 Advising the submitting organization/individual on the need for suitable
samples
6.3 Each specific case should be reviewed by the trainer within a reasonable
timeframe.
7. PHASE 5 - FINAL COMPETENCE ASSESSMENT

7.1 At the culmination of the documented training period, the trainee will undertake
a series of competence assessments. These assessments should include:
 Review of the casework material examined during Phases 3 and 4 of the

training programme. This material will form a portfolio of material which can
be assessed both internally, and if appropriate by external scrutiny
 Successful outcomes from a number of proficiency tests
 Presentation skills, relating specifically to forensic handwriting comparisons
 Report writing skills
7.2 Following confirmation that the trainee is competent and confident to present
evidence in court, the trainee will be considered suitable for undertaking and
reporting casework.
8. PHASE 6 - CONTINUED RE-EVALUATION

8.1 It is important to remember that the Training and Final Competence
Assessment is a milestone in the Trainees’ progress. All Forensic Handwriting
Examiners must maintain their competence. This can be achieved via a number
of processes but should include:
 Regular participation in testing procedures (e.g. collaborative exercises,

proficiency tests)
 Peer review of casework
 Maintenance of competence through regular discussion and independent
examinations
 Maintained awareness of developments in the field through literature,
training sessions and seminars/workshops
8.2 Following any prolonged absence or period of inactivity with regards to

handwriting comparisons the Forensic Handwriting Examiner must undergo a
reassessment for competence (similar to that described in Phase 5, paragraph
7).
Appendix 3 22/118
Typical example of training programme. Detailed timings will be dependent on

organisational requirements.
Forensic Handwriting Examinations – Training Programme
Name: James Smith
General information
The forensic examination and comparison of handwriting is one of the most subjective of
forensic disciplines and it is essential that anyone being trained in the subject is given
adequate time to gain experience. The only way to gain experience is by examining
handwritings – and plenty of them – and being told about the significance of handwriting
features by an experienced handwriting expert.
In reaching conclusions, and expressing opinions, Forensic Handwriting Examiners have to

make assessments of the significance of the handwriting features under examination. To
ascribe high significance to relatively common features is a sure and certain way to an
erroneous conclusion. Therefore it is essential that the trainee examines handwriting on a
daily basis and not just in a piecemeal or occasional manner (ENFHEX BPM).
Activity Training Time Target date Completion

Trainee Trainer
Initial Training  Introduction to the Quality
System and Methodology
 Review of relevant textbooks
and scientific papers
 Test item handling
 Introduction to basic notetaking
 Use of relevant instrumentation
Initial case  Confirming relevant items 3 days per week
notetaking  Identifying requirements (minimum)
(Handwriting comparison,
signatures, indented impressions
etc.)
 Notetaking (including ink types,
colours, printing process etc.
Detailed  Magnification 3 days per week
notetaking  Sketching handwritings (minimum)
 Highlighting features
 Individual features (proportions,
shapes, structures)
Assessment of  Pictorial similarity 3 days per week
the significance of  Chance resemblance (minimum)
handwriting  Quantity/Quality of handwriting
features
Interpretation of  Management of large casefiles As and when
the significance of  Grouping of handwriting cases become
handwriting available
features
Appendix 3 23/118
Activity Training Time Target date Completion
Trainee Trainer
External  Disguised handwriting As and when

influences  Copying and forgery cases become
 Effects of drugs and alcohol on available
handwriting
 Effects of illness and age on
handwriting
 Writing with the unaccustomed
hand
 Positional influences
Reporting Results  Conclusion scales On-going
Report writing  Construction of generic report On-going

Competence  Use of in-house and externally As determined
Assessment developed QA Trials by Trainee and
 Review of casework material Trainer
 Report writing skills
Background  General Documents and On-going
reading Handwriting protocols
Notes:
 The bulk of the training will consist of shadowing an expert using case examples. During the preliminary aspects of the
training both in-house generated examples and previous casework will be utilised.
 All aspects of training will be regularly reviewed and discussed with the trainee
 Any slippage in the timetable may result in the “Competence Assessment” date being postponed.
Appendix 3 24/118

HANDWRITING EXAMINATIONS AND COMPARISONS
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the examination is to determine whether or not there is
evidence that two or more pieces of handwriting have a common authorship
(that is to say “Is there any evidence that two or more pieces of handwriting
were written by the same person?”). The approach relies on a visual
examination of the characteristics of the handwriting, and an assessment of
the similarities and differences found between pieces of handwriting.
2. SCOPE
2.1 The scope of this procedure covers the forensic examination and comparison
of handwriting (in all forms including signatures and graffiti), both original and
non-original.
3. PRINCIPLES
3.1 There are five main principles that need to be considered when examining
handwriting. Each of the following principles is dependent on the quality and
quantity of available handwriting.
3.1.1 No two people write exactly alike.
3.1.2 No one person writes exactly the same way twice, and no two naturally written
signatures are exactly the same.
3.1.3 The significance of any feature, as evidence of identity or non-identity, and the
problem of comparison becomes one of considering its rarity, complexity, the
relative speed and naturalness with which it is written, and its agreement or
disagreement with comparable features.
3.1.4 No one is able to imitate all of the features of another person's handwriting and
simultaneously write at the same relative speed and skill as the writer that
he/she is seeking to imitate.
3.1.5 In those cases where the writer disguises their normal handwriting or imitates
the handwriting of another person, it is not always possible to identify the
author of the handwriting.
4. HEALTH & SAFETY

Occasionally items are submitted which have been:
 Treated with chemical reagents to enhance fingerprints

 Exposed to biological material (for example blood products etc)
Appendix 3 25/118
Caution must be maintained when examining this type of material, and on

occasion the contamination may be such that, on health and safety grounds,
no examination can be undertaken.
5. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

For Terms and Definitions see Appendix 8.
6. PRESERVATION AND HANDLING OF ITEMS

6.1 All test items should be handled as little as possible, and normally by an
individual wearing gloves or using tweezers.
6.2 All test items should be protected from damage by packing securely in plastic
bags or envelopes.
6.3 The sequence of all relevant tests should be assessed prior to any
examinations. Consideration should be given to the potential contamination of
the items during the handwriting examination. For optimum recovery of
information the items should be examined by the Forensic Handwriting
Examiners prior to any destructive examination (such as fingerprint treatments
and/or chemical ink analysis).
7. EQUIPMENT/INSTRUMENTATION/OPERATING CONDITIONS
The following is the minimum instrumentation recommended to undertake a
complete handwriting examination:
 A microscope, or other magnifying instrument, with sufficient magnification

to allow the examination of the fine detail of the handwriting
 A suitable light source with enough intensity of light to allow the examination
of the fine detail of the handwriting
 A suitable lighting system that allows for infra-red absorbance and

luminescence
 Oblique lighting
8. CROSS REFERENCED MATERIAL

 Best Practice Manual for the Forensic Handwriting Examination
 Appendix 1 - Key Knowledge Requirements for Forensic Handwriting
Examination
 Appendix 2 - Training Requirements for Forensic Handwriting Examiners
 Appendix 8 - Terminology and abbreviations used in Forensic Handwriting
Examination
Appendix 3 26/118
9. PROCEDURE
9.1 The flow chart (section 14) shown at the end of this appendix gives a schematic
representation of the steps undertaken during the course of a forensic
examination and comparison of handwriting.
9.2 The notes detailed below give some of the features that should be assessed
during the course of the examination. It may well be that some of these
features are not relevant in every case, and should be addressed on a case
by case basis.
9.3 Quality and quantity of handwriting

9.3.1 Features to be noted include:
9.3.1.1 Whether the handwriting is original or in the form of a copy document. If
possible and practicable examine the original documents. [Note: If the
handwritten entries are copies of originals, continue with this procedure
(making the relevant observations - where possible), but see section 9.7 of this
procedure before continuing].
9.3.1.2 The physical and/or mental state of an individual can have a significant impact
on the handwriting of that individual. Consider the potential impact on the
writing of the physical and/or mental state of all individuals concerned
including:
 Fatigue
 Illness
 Intoxication
 Age of individuals involved
[Note: The effects seen are used for comparison purposes only and while it
may be possible to give a limited, advisory comment on the physical state of
an individual, an FHE can draw no inference on the mental state of an
individual on the basis of the handwriting characteristics.]
9.3.1.3 Any external physical circumstances which may affect the overall appearance
of the handwriting (e.g. writing made while standing up, writing on a rough
surface).
9.3.1.4 Where applicable, any information supplied concerning the nationality or ethnic
origin of the potential writer (e.g. English, French, Arabic, Asian etc.).
9.3.1.5 Writing implement
 Type of writing implement (pencil, pen, spray paint etc.), see figure 1.
 Type of ink (for example ball point pen, liquid ink or gel ink etc.), see figure 1.
 Colour.
Appendix 3 27/118
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Fig 1. Different types of writing implement (a) ball-point pen ink (b) liquid ink (c) Gel ink (d) handwriting
reproduced by an ink-jet printer.
9.3.1.6 Assess the amount of available material for examination and comparison
 Is there sufficient material to be able to assess the range of variation, or are

there limitations with the amount of material available?
 Are there any other limitations within the known handwriting or within the
questioned handwriting?
9.3.1.7 Determine the type or style of handwriting submitted for examination
 Block capitals. Disconnected upper-case characters (occasionally through

speed of writing the characters demonstrate some degree of connectivity).
Fig 2. Examples of different pieces of upper-case handwriting. This is sometimes referred to as “printed
handwriting” or block capital handwriting.
 Disconnected lower-case handwriting. Lower case handwriting with each

character disconnected from the neighbouring characters. Each individual
character is often distinct and legible.
Appendix 3 28/118
Fig 3. Examples of different pieces of disconnected lower-case handwriting
 Connected lower-case handwriting. This style of handwriting is often also

known or referred to as cursive or “joined-up” handwriting. There is normally
a high level of connectivity between characters.
Fig 4. Three examples of “joined up” or cursive lowercase handwriting showing a degree of connectivity
between each character.
 Mixed writing forms (either mixed cursive and disconnected, or mixed

upper-case and lower-case)
Fig 5. Words that contained a mixture of upper-case and lower-case characters (left) or a mixture of
connected and disconnected characters (right).
 Numerals
Fig 6. Examples of numerals.
 Graffiti – like signatures a particular type or style of handwriting which has

its own unique requirements when being examined. [Note: Caution needs
to be taken when examining this type of handwriting]
Appendix 3 29/118
Fig 7. Various examples of graffiti, showing examples of handwriting (left) and more artistic styles (centre
and right).
 Signatures – A signature is a handwritten entry, produced with a purpose of

authenticating a document and typically referring to the signatory’s name.
Signatures vary with regards to their complexity and degree of automation,
both of which – from forensic point of view – influence their appropriateness
for identification. Initials or very short signatures (examples a, and g) may
not contain enough characteristics to enable identification of the writer as
they can be easily copied by other people. The higher the complexity of a
signature, regardless whether legible or illegible, the more difficult its
simulation becomes. Complexity depends on skill, number of writing
movements, changes in writing direction, allograph design, speed of
execution etc. Automation is the ability of the writer to produce the whole
signature or a large part of it with a single, well trained movement rather
than executing particular allographs or small portions one after another. The
higher the level of automation and the uniformity of the signatures of a given
individual, the higher the simulation difficulty becomes and the lower the
likelihood of a chance match. The images below represent different styles
of signatures ordered by length and complexity.
Legible signatures
a. b. c.
Mixed style signatures
d. e. f.
Illegible signatures
g. h. i.
Fig 8. Examples of legible (a, b and c), mixed style (d, e and f) and illegible signatures (g, h and i).
Signatures (c), (f) and (i) can be considered complex.
Appendix 3 30/118
9.4 General characteristics

9.4.1 Features to be noted for both handwritten entries and signatures include:
 Style and legibility

Features which may be noted in this category relate to the general
appearance, such as the “angularity”, how “readable” the handwriting is etc.
A lack of legibility, especially in signatures, is often encountered.
Fig 9. Examples of both legible and illegible handwriting.
 Size
Features such as the relationship between the size of the characters and
the writing lines. Occasionally the size of the paper may constrain the space
for the handwriting and this may affect recognizable features.
Fig 10. Images showing relative height of handwriting compared with printed lines.
 Proportions
Relative size of letters in words, for instance a larger capital letter at the
beginning of each word.
Fig 11. Two pieces of handwriting showing distinctly different sizes to characters within words.
 Spacing
Reference can be made to the relative spacing between individual
characters, between words etc.
Appendix 3 31/118
Fig 12. The effect of limited space on handwriting as well as examples of spacing in routine handwriting.
 Slope
Note the upright, backward, forward or variable slant of the handwriting
(occasionally the handwriting of an individual varies with the change of
angle of writing)
Fig 13. Three examples of handwriting. All produced by one person showing the effects of altering the
slope of the handwriting.
 Fluency/Pressure
Reference can be made to whether the writing appears to be skilfully or
poorly produced, whether there is hesitation in the pen line (pen lifts, tremor
etc.), whether the writing line is smooth flowing and whether the writing line
has variable pressure, or constant, hard pressure. Three main elements of
fluency are connective strokes between characters, tapered ends within
characters and variation in pressure within the writing
Fig 14. Images showing the differences in fluency between two words. The left hand image shows
connective strokes, tapered ends and variation in pen pressure, the right hand image lacks these
features.
 Tracing
Check if there is evidence of tracing, including guidelines. If present these
should be noted.
Appendix 3 32/118
(a) (b)
Fig 15. Example (a) shows a signature with pencil guidelines at certain point, whilst image (b)
shows indented guidelines around the edge of the signature.
(a) (b)
Fig 16. Above images (a) and (b) show the front and back of a signature with oblique light.
 Layout
Some consideration of the layout of the handwriting should be mentioned.
The layout of a document may be the individual trait of the person who made
the entries.
9.5 Detailed examination

9.5.1 Features to be noted include:
 Individual character shape

Roundness of the character, angularity etc.
(a) (b) (c) (d)
(e) (f) (g) (h)
Fig 17. Images (a) to (d) show four different block capital ‘A’s produced by the same person. The same
person produced the range of ‘H’s shown in images (e) to (h).
 Individual character proportions

For instance the relative size of the top loop in a “B” compared with the
bottom loop
Appendix 3 33/118
Fig 18. Images showing examples of the letter "B" demonstrating different proportions to the individual
character.
 Individual character construction

The pen path over the surface of the document, the number of strokes in a
character etc.
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)
Fig 19. Images (a), (b) and (c) show three different constructions for an upper-case ‘E’, whilst images
(d), (e) and (f) show variations in the pen-path for the letter ‘G’.
 Individual parts of the signature

Note or sketch the individual parts of the signature. Note whether the parts of
the signature are rounded, angular, oval etc. in shape.
Fig 20. Images showing the various different components to the initial character in a word.
 Character combinations
The relative proportions of two or more characters together, for instance “th”
joins or “ch” joins.
 Connection of letters
How are two characters joined, for instance at the top or at the bottom.
Appendix 3 34/118
 Relative fluency and pen pressure

How the pen pressure changes within a character/word and the relative
positions between two words.
Fig 21. Images showing the variation in pen pressures, at the same points, between a questioned signature (left)
and genuine signature (right).
9.6 Examination of copy documents

9.6.1 Copy documents (such as photocopies, faxes, microfiche copies) do not
contain all of the detail present in the original documents, and the quality of
copy documents varies from item to item. If an examination and comparison is
to be made using copy documents, the following observations must be made:
 Determine the clarity of the copy document. Is the handwriting sufficiently

detailed for comparison purposes?
 Comment in the notes on the fact that copy documents have been
examined.
 There must be a disclaimer that the examination is commenting only on the

handwriting and is not commenting on the authenticity of the document.
 There must be comment within the notes that the results of any examination
may be limited due to the fact that copy documents have been examined.
(a) (b)
Fig 22. Image (a) shows a poor quality photocopy, with much detail lost whilst image (b) shows a good
quality copy with great detail features.
9.6.2 If the clarity of the copy document is poor, then comment should be made to
this effect, and no significance should be attributed to any comparison made.
10. COMPARISON PHASE

10.1 On completion of the analysis (or assessment phase) of the examination
(sections 9.1 to 9.6 of this Appendix) the examiner is likely to undertake the
comparison phase (although the Analysis and Comparison phases may not be
mutually exclusive).
Appendix 3 35/118
10.2 The mechanisms involved in the Comparison Phase are detailed in Appendix 4
and these include:
 Notes on the similarities and differences in the quantity and quality of the
handwriting
 Notes on the similarities and differences in both the general and detailed
layout of a document, as well as baseline features, relative proportions of
character combinations and the slope and size of the handwriting
 Notes on the similarities and differences in the fluency of the handwriting
 Notes on the similarities and differences in detailed features, such as the
pen path and individual character constructions
 Notes on the similarities and differences in the range of variation, not only
within a single piece of writing but between two (or more) pieces of
handwriting
11. EVALUATION PHASE

11.1 On completion of the examination there is a detailed assessment of all of the
relevant findings for their significance (see Appendix 5).
11.2 The assessment will include a determination of the strength of all relevant
similarities and differences identified during the examination.
11.3 Once assessed a conclusion is formulated using the relevant conclusion scale.
12. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND COMPETENCY

12.1 A competent examiner should be able to use the Instrumentation listed in
section 7.
12.2 The competencies relevant to the Examination and Comparison of Handwriting

are summarised in the Key Knowledge Requirements for Forensic Handwriting
Examination.
12.3 The specific quality procedures for each department should be detailed by the
relevant department.
13. REFERENCES
13.1 There are many books, journals and individual papers published on the subject
of Forensic Handwriting Examinations. It is impossible to compile a complete
list of all of these. The principle books are detailed in section 15 of the BPM.
Appendix 3 36/118
14. OVERVIEW OF THE EXAMINATION PROCESS
Appendix 3 37/118
APPENDIX 4 - COMPARISON
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The following appendix aims to provide a number of tools and procedures
which can be used in the forensic comparison of handwriting. It is accepted
that over time laboratories have developed their own “in-house” procedures for
comparing handwriting, with slight variations in approach, but this appendix is
designed to assist in developing a more consistent application.
1.2 Comparison, within the framework of the handwriting examination process

(processes such as ACE, ACE-V or double ACE), is the second phase of
examination.
1.3 The comparison phase follows after the questioned (Qn) and the known
material (Kn) have been assessed as being suitable for comparison and,
strictly speaking, after all features have been assessed separately in both the
Qn and Kn (the “analysis” phase). In practice, the analysis and comparison
steps may be carried out simultaneously, and not necessarily performed
sequentially. Nevertheless, it is advisable to understand the processes
involved in the comparison phase, and to proceed as systematically as
possible.
1.4 Clear documentation of both the analysis and comparison phases is critical
and will also be addressed in this appendix.
1.5 Comparison is followed by the evaluation of the findings. It is important to see

evaluation as a separate phase in forensic handwriting comparison, which
should take into account the complete findings from both the analysis and
comparison steps.
2. SCOPE
2.1 The scope of the comparison phase is the systematic assessment of each
handwriting feature in both the questioned and the known handwriting, to
determine if the feature is similar or not, and to document the findings.
2.2 While the most basic outcomes from comparing a single feature is that they
are either similar or different, there are many other possible observations that
need to be considered, for example:
 when comparing larger amounts of text, the process is effectively comparing

the range of variation present within the questioned material with the range
variation of the known material for the same feature. Thus, the distribution
of different variants of the same feature might need to be taken into account.
 considering limited quantities of known handwriting may lead to missing

features, where the specific feature of the questioned writing is not present
within the known material and therefore cannot be compared.
Appendix 4 38/112
2.3 A comparison does not necessarily need to take place between one set of
questioned writing and one set of known writing. Scenarios where several
questioned texts need to be compared to each other, or where more than one
questioned or known set of writings need to be examined do frequently occur
in casework. These can always be broken down to one-to-one comparisons,
such that they correspond to the same process.
3. DEFINITIONS
3.1 Handwriting Characteristics
3.1.1 The general and detailed handwriting characteristics that can be compared are
described in sections 9.4 and 9.5 of Appendix 3.
3.2 Definitions of similarities, differences, and missing features

3.2.1 One of the most useful and detailed definition of similarities and dissimilarities
was provided by Found and Rodgers (1998).
3.2.2 “Similarities are pictorial, structural [or dynamic] features that appear
consistent between [questioned and the known writings]. The similarities can
be observed in terms of the way the strokes are concatenated into [character,
character combinations], word formations, the features that are able to be
described and the relative placement of [writing elements].”
3.2.3 “Differences are pictorial, structural [or dynamic] features that appear
dissimilar between [questioned and the known writings]. The dissimilarities can
be observed in terms of the way the strokes are concatenated into [character,
character combinations], word formations and the features that are able to be
described. The criteria for features to be described as different are that they
are fundamental to the pictorial or structural character of the writing and are
not shared between the bodies of questioned and standard writings.”
3.2.4 In some publications terms like significant similarities or differences, as well as

individual characteristics are used. Those terms refer to the value attributed to
characteristics during the evaluation of the findings and are therefore avoided
in this appendix. During the comparison phase, it is best not to prematurely
attribute evidential value to the findings, because this could hinder the analysis
of the full catalogue of handwriting characteristics and lead to bias.
3.2.5 The term “missing features” refers to general characteristics or a particular

character from the questioned writings that are missing from the known
writings. Those features cannot be compared and assessed as similar or
different. This can occur due to limited quantity of the known material or with
respect to uncommon, rare features.
Appendix 4 39/112
4. COMPARISON AS PART OF THE HANDWRITING

EXAMINATION PROCESS
4.1 General considerations
4.1.1 During the analysis phase, not only does the examiner make an assessment
of the suitability of the questioned material (Qn) and the known writing (Kn),
but also an inspection of all of the handwriting characteristics in both groups of
handwriting, including detailed case notetaking. The comparison phase
therefore involves not only a systematic comparison of characteristics,
supported by the notes taken during the analysis phase, but also, where
necessary, a review of the assessments of questioned and known samples.
4.1.2 Both the analysis and the comparison steps should be documented by noting
the observations for each feature in the questioned and the known handwriting,
as well as the outcome (similar, different, missing; see sections 3.2 and 4.2.5).
Features that cannot be compared (e.g. features that are not present or not
assessable in Qn, or features missing from Kn) should be clearly marked (i.e.
by striking through).
4.1.3 The flow chart (see section 7) demonstrates the underlying sequence of steps
involved in the comparison phase and details some of the possible outcomes.
While it depicts a standard procedure, it is important to keep in mind that
deviations are quite common in forensic science, since casework does not
represent a standardized task and cannot be fully covered. The process map
is a simplification of the actual process.
4.2 Detailed considerations

4.2.1 Analysis and assessment of characteristics
4.2.1.1 The comparison process starts with the outcome of the analysis phase, where
a) the questioned (Qn) and the known (Kn) material has been found to be
“comparable” and b) all the characteristics from Qn and Kn have been
assessed.
4.2.1.2 For each feature (see sections 9.4 and 9.5 of Appendix 3) in the questioned
writing, it must first be checked whether relevant characteristics can also be
assessed in known writings. If not, that particular characteristic cannot be
compared, resulting in a missing feature.
4.2.2 Comparison of characteristics considering variation

4.2.2.1 Next, each characteristic needs to be compared. Depending on the number of
occurrences in Qn and Kn as well as the variation of the feature in Qn and Kn,
different paths can be taken in the flow chart. This shows that the possible
outcomes of a comparison of a single feature is not just a similarity or a
difference (see section 4.2.3), but can be more nuanced, since various aspects
need to be taken into account (see section 4.2.4).
4.2.3 Findings from the comparison

4.2.3.1 The basic findings of the comparison phase are that each single characteristic
can be similar, different or not comparable (e.g. due to missing features or due
to difficulties in assessing certain characteristics). The assessment of what is
Appendix 4 40/112
similar and what is different can be trivial in some cases and more complex in
others (see section 3.2 for definitions and section 5 for examples).
4.2.3.2 Since this process is repeatedly applied to each characteristic, the result of the
entire comparison phase can be considered as a complex combination of
similarities, differences, intermediate forms, and missing features.
4.2.4 Parameters that need to be considered during comparison

4.2.4.1 A critical component of the comparison of handwriting is the suitability of the
known material. To facilitate comparison, some parameters should be met by
the known samples:
 the known material should contain handwriting which is similar to the
questioned sample in writing system, writing style, context of document
type1, writing implement used,
 the known material should contain all characters present in the questioned
text,
 the known material should be of sufficient quantity, such that the variation
of the writer can be correctly assessed,
 depending on the case, the known material should be dated close to the
questioned entries.
4.2.4.2 If those parameters are not fulfilled, suitability of the known material may be
restricted. Those limitations need to be taken into account during the
comparison. It may be impossible to properly compare particular
characteristics leading to missing features or an imprecise assessment of the
variation.
4.2.4.3 If part of the known material is more suitable for comparison to the questioned
writing, those entries might need to be given more importance for the
examination.
4.2.4.4 When working with non-original handwriting or with items produced with
particular writing implements (especially liquid ink, such as in fibre-tip pens) or
when the writing has been degenerated (e.g. by contamination with dirt, water
or chemical reagents), some important handwriting characteristics, such as
writing pressure, line quality or even writing direction, are difficult or impossible
to correctly assess. This uncertainty needs to be taken into account when
estimating if a feature is similar or different to the known samples.
4.2.4.5 At this phase, when deciding for each characteristic of the questioned writing
if it is similar or different to the known writings, possible explanations for the
findings, such as disguise or simulation, should not yet be taken into account.
The interpretation with regards to those (sub)-hypotheses belongs to the
evaluation phase of the forensic handwriting examination.
1 For example a quick and casual draft of a shopping list may be inadequate to be compared to an
official text like a testament
Appendix 4 41/112
4.2.5 Documentation and notetaking

4.2.5.1 Documentation and notetaking during the analysis and comparison phases of
the forensic handwriting examination process are important to ensure
traceability. To facilitate the workflow and conform to quality assurance
procedures predefined forms (including important information such as case
number, examiner name, and date) may be used (notetaking forms are
presented in appendix 6, section 11). Notes and documentation should be
clear and sufficient for another examiner of the same laboratory to be able to
fully comprehend them.
4.2.5.2 To assist documentation of the findings different overviews may be prepared

on such forms to be used offline or online:
 Tabular overview of scanned/copied letters and characteristics,

 Tabular overview of handmade sketches of letters and characteristics,
 Overviews of scanned/copied signatures.
4.2.5.3 The findings from the comparison may be documented in different ways, such
as:
 Written notes describing the characteristics and the findings,

 Drawings and markings on prepared overviews,
 Drawings and markings on copies/scans of the questioned and known
writings,
 Use of signs to document the findings – see Box 1 for an example
Examples of how to illustrate, describe and evaluate particular similarities and differences observed
between the Qn material and the Kn samples is proposed below. In this example the material was
assessed on a 5-point scale, in the following categories:
 clearly similar (++)

 similar (+)
 inconclusive (~)
 different (-)
 clearly different (- -)
 missing feature / not comparable (N/C)
Each laboratory will have their own approach to “scoring” the level of similarity or difference, but
it is important to document the specific scale within their case notes and management system.
Box 1 – Potential assessment criteria for each of the features compared
4.2.5.4 Examples of the type of recommended notetaking are indicated in Boxes 2 to

15 in section 5 of this appendix and in the note taking form, section 11 of
Appendix 5. These examples are not exhaustive but give an idea of what may
be expected within the case-notes.
Appendix 4 42/112
5. EXAMPLES OF THE TYPE OF INFORMATION TO BE RECORDED

5.1 General features
5.1.1 Style and Legibility – Features which may be noted in this category relate to
the general appearance, such as the “angularity”, how “readable” the
handwriting is etc. The lack of legibility, especially in signatures, is often
encountered.
Proposed wording:
The signatures in Qn are legible and consist of disconnected lowercase letters, whereas the Kn,
which have been produced over a wide time range and come from a variety of sources, consist of
connected uppercase letters with limited legibility.
Proposed assessment level:

Style --
Legibility -
Box 2 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference for “Style” and “Legibility”
5.1.2 General Layout
Proposed wording: The left margin of the addressee data on the Qn envelope is irregular, and the
baselines are ascending or horizontal. In contrast, the corresponding K samples have a widening
left margin (each line of text starts slightly to the right relative to the previous one), and the
baselines are clearly descending.

Left margin -
Baseline -
Box 3 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference in general aspects of the “Layout”
Appendix 4 43/112
5.1.3 Detailed layout features - Features such as the relationship between the size
of the characters and the writing lines, occasionally the size of the paper may
constrain the space for the handwriting and this may affect recognizable
features.
Proposed wording: In both Qn and K there are occasionally curved, descending baselines, which
can be interpreted as the writer's reaction to limited space (whether by approaching the edge of a
sheet of paper or crossing the boundary of the relevant form field).

Layout +
Box 4 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference in specific aspects of the “Layout”
5.1.4 Detailed baseline
Proposed wording: The baselines of the word “PRZYSZOWA” present a similar wavy shape,
with the bases of the letters “Y” and “S” positioned lower in relation to the adjacent characters.

Baseline +
Box 5 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference in specific aspects of the “Detailed
baseline”
Appendix 4 44/112
5.1.5 Relative Size and Proportions - Relative size of letters in words, for instance a
larger capital letter at the beginning of each word.
Proposed wording: The characters in the Qn are slightly smaller than the 20 relevant K samples.
However, the relative proportions of a combination of characters in the Qn are well within the range
of variability observed in K.

Relative heights of Q v K -
Relative proportions of characters ++
Box 6 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference for “Size of characters” and
“Character Proportions”
5.1.6 Relative spacing and slope - Reference can be made to the relative spacing
between individual characters, between words etc. as well as the upright,
backward, forward or variable slant of the handwriting.
Proposed wording: The gap between the series and the number of the ID card is clearly and
consistently larger in K than in Qn. Furthermore, characters in Qn generally lean to the right, whereas
in K to the left.

Spacing --
Slope -
Box 7 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference for “Spacing” and the “Slope”
Appendix 4 45/112
5.2 Detailed features

5.2.1 Pen path and character construction
Proposed wording: The oval part of the letter "P" was produced clockwise in Qn, while
counterclockwise in K.

Pen direction --
Proposed wording: The order in which the strokes in the letter "E" are produced differs in Qn and
K. In the former, the three horizontal strokes were made from top to bottom, as can be seen from
their connections, whereas in K the bottom one was made immediately after the vertical stem.

Sequence of strokes --
Box 8 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference in aspects of the “pen direction” [A]
and “character construction” [B]
5.2.3 Fluency/Pressure - Reference can be made to whether the writing appears to

be skilfully or poorly produced, whether there is hesitation in the pen line (pen
lifts, tremor etc.), whether the writing line is smooth flowing and whether the
writing line has variable pressure, or constant, hard pressure. Three main
elements of fluency are connective strokes between characters, tapered ends
within characters and variation in pressure within the writing and these are all
considered during the comparison phase.
Appendix 4 46/112
5.2.3.1 Tapering features
Proposed wording: Similar fluency/line quality was observed between Qn and K, which manifests
itself in the tapering of the initial and final strokes, as well as the flying strokes in the connections
between letter elements. These phenomena occurred even though different types of writing
implements were used to produce the compared samples.

Tapered ends ++
Box 9 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference for the “Tapering features”
5.2.3.2 Variation in pressure and connectivity
Proposed wording: Both Qn and K show rhythmic pressure, with its consistent shading/fluctuation
within particular characters. For example, the connection between the oval and the final stroke in
the letter 'a' or the ascending strokes in the letters 'n' and 'w' were produced with less pressure than
their neighbouring parts.

Variable pressure ++
Connectivity ++
Box 10 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference in both the variation in the
“Pressure” and the “Degree of connectivity”
Appendix 4 47/112
5.2.3.3 Overall assessment of fluency (including variable pressure, connectivity and

tapering)
Proposed wording: Qn contains numerous tapered beginnings and endings as well as flying
strokes, while the start and end points in K are generally blunt and shading/pressure fluctuations
are negligible. Examples of corresponding parts of the Qn and K samples that exhibit different
phenomena are marked with arrows.

Overall fluency --
Box 11 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference in the overall “Fluency”
5.2.4 Range of variation – Reference can be made as to whether there is a wide

range of variation within the material and how similar the ranges are between
the Qn and Kn material
5.2.4.1 Range of variation - similar
Proposed wording: Different representations of the numeral "2" exhibit a similarly shaped loop
at the base in Qn and K, the top of the character is arched or obliquely flattened and in one variant
also contains a loop.
Range of variation ++
Box 12 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference in specific aspects of the “Range
of variation” where the range is similar between Qn and Kn
Appendix 4 48/112
5.2.4.2 Range of variation – different (and wide ranging)
Proposed wording: In spite of the low stability of the structure of the letter “S”, which presents a
considerable range of variation in both materials, it was observed that in Qn it is generally weakly
profiled, while in K the character is strongly curved.

Range of variation -
of variation” where the range is quite wide but characters are different
5.2.4.3 Range of variation – different (but relatively narrow)
Proposed wording: In both Qn and Kn, the structure of the letter 'Y' is stable but different, since
in the former case it consists of two diagonal lines, a shorter one on the left and a longer one on
the right, while in K it is composed of an arc at the top and a short vertical line at the bottom.

Range of variation --
of variation” where the range is narrow for both Qn and Kn but different
Appendix 4 49/112
5.2.4.4 Superimposition
Proposed wording: The shapes of the letters in the Qn and Kn are nearly identical and almost
perfectly overlapping when superimposed.
Level of superimposition +
Box 15 – Example of an assessment for level of similarity/difference when aspect of the handwriting
are superimposable
6. COMMUNICATION OF FINDINGS IN EXPERT REPORTS

6.1 Traceability is an important requirement for an expert report, i.e. the
examination and the findings thereof should be described in such a way that
they are comprehensible to a lay person.
6.2 To achieve this, it is recommended that the findings from the comparison
phase are described and documented in a separate section of the report,
containing short descriptions of characteristics for the questioned and the
known material as well as the findings from the comparison (similar or
different). To obey the principle of proportionality, the findings documented in
the report can be limited to a representative number of (key) characteristics.
The interpretation of the findings (i.e. whether they support the proposition of
same writer or that of different writer) should not be given in this section, but
should be addressed in the following report section “evaluation of the findings”.
6.3 Characteristics can be described or documented using images, which can

improve the comprehensibility to lay persons. The images may include
annotations (numbers, lines, arrows, frames) as well as corresponding legends
to highlight specific handwriting characteristics.
6.4 Attention should be paid to a balanced choice of the description and illustration
of characteristics, to avoid creating the impression of partiality and to
demonstrate that all features have been fully examined.
Appendix 4 50/112
7. FLOW CHART OF THE COMPARISON PROCESS
Appendix 4 51/112
8. REFERENCES
ASTM E2290-03 (2003) Standard Guide for Examination of Handwritten Items.

West Conshohocken: ASTM International, available at:
https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/E2290-03.htm
Found, B., Rodgers, D. (1998) A Consideration of the Theoretical Basis of

Forensic Handwriting Examination, International Journal of Forensic
Document Examiners, Vol. 4, No. 2, 109-118
Found, B.J., Bird, C. (2016) The modular forensic handwriting method, Journal
of Forensic Document Examination 26: 7-83, available at:
https://doi.org/10.31974/jfde26-7-83
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) (2021) Forensic

Handwriting Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through
a Systems Approach. The Report of the Expert Working Group for Human
Factors in Handwriting Examination, available at:
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8282r1
SWGDOC (Scientific Working Group for Forensic Document Examination)

(2016) Standard for Examination of Handwritten Items, available at:
https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2016/10/26/swgdoc_standard_f
or_examination_of_handwritten_items.pdf
Appendix 4 52/112
APPENDIX 5 – EVALUATION
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 It is recognised that within the reporting process for forensic handwriting
examination there are a number of approaches to formulating a conclusion.
Some of these are discussed within this appendix.
1.2 Evaluation, within the framework of the handwriting examination process

(processes such as ACE, ACE-V or double ACE), is the third phase of
examination. It is also the final step of the procedure undertaken by the
examiner. Strictly speaking, it follows after both the questioned material (Qn)
and the known material (Kn) have been analysed as well as systematically and
fully compared. In practice evaluation of the findings is, to some degree, done
in parallel to the first two phases. Nevertheless, seeing evaluation as a
separate process helps in avoiding certain types of bias (especially circular
reasoning).
1.3 According to the ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in Forensic Science
(ENFSI, 2015) an evaluative report is any report containing an evaluative
reporting section which provides an assessment of the strength of the findings
in the context of a given analysis. This approach is also detailed in other recent
reports (NIFS, 2017; NIST 2020).
1.4 To prepare an evaluative report the forensic practitioner needs to understand

factors such as:
 the use of probability as a measure of uncertainty,
 formulation of propositions,
 Bayesian framework,
 likelihood ratio,
 considering relevant context information.
1.5 There are three main principles that need to be considered when evaluating
findings in a forensic handwriting examination:
 The framework of circumstances and any information relevant to the

examination.
 At least two competing propositions (hypotheses).
 The probability of the evidence given the propositions and the framework of
circumstances, which does not correspond to the probability of a
proposition.
2. SCOPE
2.1 This appendix expands on the ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative Reporting in
Forensic Science which does not contain an example of handwriting analysis.
It presents the Forensic Handwriting Examiner with a practical approach to the
evaluative reporting process within handwriting and signature examinations.
Appendix 5 53/112
Using this approach might help Forensic Handwriting Examiners to develop a

logical and scientific method to assess their findings.
2.2 The aim of the evaluation phase of the handwriting examination process is to
systematically assess all of the findings as a whole given the competing
propositions (hypotheses) in question, in such a way that a value of the
evidential strength is obtained.
2.3 It is necessary to assign a probability (or likelihood of occurrence) of the

findings under each of the propositions in question. The ratio between these
probabilities gives the likelihood ratio, which represents the strength of the
evidence. This can be communicated either in the form of a numerical value,
or by using a verbal equivalent based on a verbal scale (or both). The
application of this logical reasoning to traditional conclusion scales will also be
addressed.
3. PROCESS FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE FINDINGS FROM A

HANDWRITING COMPARISON
3.1 An overview of the evaluation process is represented in the flow chart in
section 10. The flow chart includes the formation of the propositions, pre-
assessment as well as the evaluation of the findings to reach a conclusion.
4. PROPOSITIONS / HYPOTHESES
4.1 General considerations
4.1.1 Any evaluation of scientific findings from an analysis and comparison of
handwriting requires that at least two competing propositions are considered.
4.1.2 It has been suggested that the propositions can be classified into a “Hierarchy
of propositions” (ENFSI, 2015, section 4.0; Cook and Evett, 1998) where Level
I is “Source” level, Level II is “Activity” level and Level III is “Offence” level. This
Appendix only deals with activity and source levels, as the offence level (for
example “Mr. A committed the fraud” vs. “Another person committed the fraud”)
is the reserve of the court.
4.1.3 In forensic handwriting cases, propositions on the activity and source levels
are often interchangeable. Subtle differences could be introduced in the
phrasing: while the pair of propositions “Mr. A wrote the questioned text” vs.
“Another unknown person wrote the questioned text” describe an activity, “The
questioned text was written by the same person as the reference material
(purported to originate from Mr. A)” vs. “The questioned text was written by a
different (unknown) person than the reference material” refer to a source. The
latter formulations could be especially useful in cases where the examiner
cannot be absolutely sure of the source of the reference material.
4.1.4. There is a number of potential sources for the propositions. These include;
 The propositions may be given by the submitting authority.
Appendix 5 54/112
 The propositions may be established directly from the examination request

question(s).
 The propositions may be derived indirectly from the written request or from
the case circumstances and/or background information.
4.1.5 The propositions are usually developed when the examination request is
received, i.e., before the examinations are undertaken, it is preferable that they
are recorded at that point.
4.1.6 It is recommended that the propositions are documented in the report.
4.1.7 For a meaningful evaluation, the propositions must be mutually exclusive (i.e.
they cannot both be true at the same time). While they are not required to be
exhaustive, they should take into account all reasonable scenarios, including,
where applicable any scenario put forward by other involved parties.
4.1.8 Routinely a case will contain two competing propositions, although in certain
circumstances a case will require a greater number.
4.1.9 Propositions should not contain specific explanations of the findings under the
proposition in question, such as “it is a perfect forgery” or “it was written by
person A with the intent of disguise using the left hand”. Such explanations
should be considered during the discussion of the findings under each
proposition, but including them in the propositions might lead to an evidential
strength of no value.
4.2 Setting the propositions

4.2.1 Two proposition scenarios
4.2.1.1 Potentially the most straightforward case derives from questions of the type
“Did person A write the questioned text/signature?”. Routinely this leads to
propositions of the type:
- “Person A wrote the questioned text/signature” (same source proposition)

vs. “An unknown person wrote the questioned text/signature” (different
source proposition).
4.2.1.2 In certain circumstances, the question asked is in the form of “Did person A or
person B write it?”. In this case only a limited subset of the population should
be considered. In such cases the examiner should ensure with the submitting
authority whether or not it can be assumed that the document can only have
been written by one of these two persons. This would lead to the following pair
of propositions:
- “Person A wrote the questioned entry” vs. “Person B wrote the questioned
entry”.
4.2.2 Multiple propositions and more complex scenarios

4.2.2.1 Multiple propositions are possible (e.g. “person A wrote it”, “person B wrote it”
and “someone other than person A and person B wrote it”). Strictly speaking,
in those cases an evidential value has to be evaluated for each pair of
Appendix 5 55/112
propositions however it is recommended to only give one combined conclusion

when reporting these results (i.e. “person A wrote the questioned text” versus
“Person B or someone else wrote the questioned text/signature”; Robertson
2016, chapter 3.3).
4.2.2.2 Sub-propositions may need to be considered, for example if a potentially

simulated signature needs to be compared to the known writing of a suspected
simulator, and these can be worded using the following type of phrases:
 Questions raised: 1. Is the questioned signature genuine or simulated? 2. If

it is simulated, was it written by person B?:
- H1: The questioned signature is genuine, i.e. it was written by person A.
- H2: The questioned signature is simulated, i.e. it was written by another
person than A.
- H2a: The questioned signature was written by person B.
- H2b: The questioned signature was written by an unknown person other
than person B.
If multiple sub-propositions are to be considered, the examiner would firstly

reach a conclusion for H1 versus H2. If H1 is supported over H2, the sub-
propositions usually become meaningless. If the findings provide support for
H2 over H1 then the examiner would have to assess the likelihood ratio for H2a
against H2b.
5. PRE-ASSESSMENT
5.1 Goals and requirements of a case pre-assessment
5.1.1 A case pre-assessment helps the examiners in setting their expectations. It
should be undertaken after the propositions have been stated based on the
mandate and prior to starting the examinations. To perform a case pre-
assessment, the examiner needs to be aware of the amount of the submitted
material, as well as gaining a first impression of the extent and complexity of
the questioned handwriting entries. Particular case circumstances might need
to be considered as well.
5.1.2 Taking into account a pair of propositions, the examiner can now assess the
probabilities of the possible likely outcomes (see boxes 1 and 2 as well as
section 5.2).
5.1.3 Depending on the expected likelihood ratios, the examiner may report to the
mandating authority if the examinations will be helpful in answering the
relevant questions and discuss further progress (type of examinations to
perform, possible reformulation of mandate questions, etc.). At that point, the
examiner may advise that further steps need be taken before the examinations
are performed, e.g. acquiring the original document or additional reference
material.
5.2 Setting the expectations

5.2.1 The expectations for the examinations are set during the pre-assessment.
Expectations are the possible outcomes of an examination (i.e. the
Appendix 5 56/112
combination of similarities and differences observed), while the propositions

refer to the potential scenarios in question.
In this example the questioned signature is short and of low complexity. The known material shows
a small range of variation. No particular case circumstances are known. Based on the mandate
questions, the examiner stipulates the following propositions:
- H1: The questioned signature was written by Ms. A.

- H2: The questioned signature was written by an unknown person other than Ms. A.
Under H1 (i.e. if H1 is true) the examiner would expect the questioned signature to show similarity
in all features, possibly some smaller deviations in a limited number of characteristics. The
probability of obtaining a large number of differences is estimated to be very small.
Under H2 (i.e. if H2 is true) some similarities can be expected due to the low complexity of the
signature. In some cases, even a high degree of similarities could be expected. Finally, it is also
perceivable that the questioned signature fully differ from the known signature in several
characteristics.
These reflections could be formalized in a pre-assessment table as follows:
Outcome of the Assigned probability Assigned probability Likelihood ratio3

forensic of outcome of outcome
handwriting assuming that the assuming that the
comparison signature was signature was
written by Ms. A written by an
unknown person2
Full similarity Very high Low Moderate support for
H1
Mostly similarity, Low Low No support for either
some differences in H1 and H2
shape
Similarity in shape, Very low High Moderately strong
differences in support for H2
dynamic
handwriting
features
Clear differences Very low Medium Moderately strong
support for H2
1 This reflects the conditional probability of the findings if H1 is true, represented as Pr(E|H1). For
these examples, verbal expressions (such as extremely low, very low, low, medium, high, very
high, extremely high) for the assigned probabilities were used. Numerical probabilities can be
used instead (taking care that the sum of the probabilities of the different outcomes under a
given proposition equals 1).
2 This reflects the conditional probability of the findings if H2 is true, represented as Pr(E|H2).
3 The likelihood ratio reflects the quotient P(E|H1) / P(E|H2) in the Bayesian formula (see section
7.5.3). For these examples, verbal expressions taken from the ENFSI Guideline for Evaluative
Reporting in Forensic Science (2015) for the assigned evidential strength (extremely strong
support, very strong support, strong support, moderately strong support, moderate support,
weak support, no support for either proposition). Numerical estimates can be used instead.
Box 1 - Example of a pre-assessment in a case involving a short, simple signature.
Appendix 5 57/112
5.2.2 In the simple example shown in box 1 the expectations would be:
 For proposition H1 the examiner would expect the questioned signature to

show similarity in all features, possibly some smaller deviations in a limited
number of characteristics.
 For proposition H2 since the signature is a simple and short product, the
examiner would expect that a certain number of similarities could be found.
In some cases, even a high degree of similarities could be expected. Finally,
there is a potential that the questioned signature fully differs from the known
signatures in several features.
5.2.3 Based on the expectations for each proposition, possible likelihood ratios can
be assigned for each possible outcome.
For a more complex signature, with limited known material, and a larger variation in the known
material, different values would be assigned:
Outcome of the Assigned Assigned Likelihood ratio

forensic probability of probability of
handwriting outcome assuming outcome assuming
comparison that the signature that the signature
was written by Ms. was not written by
A an unknown person
Full similarity High Extremely low Strong support for H1
Mostly similarity, Medium Very low Moderate support for
some differences in H1
shape
Similarity in shape, Low High Moderately strong
differences in support for H2
dynamic
handwriting
features
Clear differences Low (possible Medium Weak support for H2
different variant due
to the limited known
material)
Box 2 - Adjustments to the pre-assessment table when a more complex signature is to be

examined.
6. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON

6.1 A significant aspect of the handwriting examination process is the analysis and
comparison aspects. These two parts of the examination are detailed in
Appendices 3 and 6 (Analysis of handwriting and digitally captured handwriting
respectively) and Appendix 4 (Comparison process).
Appendix 5 58/112
7.1 EVALUATION OF THE FINDINGS

7.1 General
7.1.1 Evaluation of the findings of a handwriting comparison requires both the
analysis and comparison stage to be completed and puts the integral findings
into relation with the case framework (i.e. mandate question, propositions,
relevant case circumstances). Evaluation requires a holistic approach, since
one finding on its own cannot be interpreted properly (e.g. an unergonomic
pen stop in the middle of a questioned signature cannot be interpreted without
knowing the findings coming from other characteristics). Evaluation might take
into account not only findings from the handwriting comparison, but also
possible findings from electrostatic detection devices, spectral comparison
techniques, and visual examination of the entire document.
7.1.2 It is good advice to start evaluation by reflecting (and documenting) on the

most important findings (both similarities and differences) as well as factors
that can influence the evaluation (e.g. complexity and variation of questioned
and known material, amount of known material, relevant context information).
7.2 Relevant contextual information and context management

7.2.1 Relevant context information is any information provided by the mandating
authority that is needed for the interpretation of the handwriting comparison
findings. They provide possible explanations for discrepancies (e.g. purported
particular writing conditions, health conditions of the writer, etc.) or for
similarities (e.g. profession of the potential forger, access to model signatures,
training opportunity for the potential forger, etc.). When taken into account,
they may alter the assigned evidential strength in favour of either proposition.
Their interpretation requires expert knowledge and is therefore within the
competency of the forensic handwriting expert.
7.2.2 Any relevant context information that was considered during the examination
should be stated within the expert report (ENFSI, 2015, section 5), either in a
separate section (“Background information”), when stating the propositions or
in the discussion of the findings.
7.2.3 If either the propositions or relevant background information change, the

conclusions of the expert report may need to be reviewed. This should be
stated in the report (ENFSI, 2015 3.12).
7.2.4 Irrelevant context information is any information that is not necessary to assess
the handwriting comparison findings, such as confessions, motives, findings
from other forensic disciplines, witness statements etc. Such information is
prone to cause undesirable contextual bias (Dror , Charlton and Péron, 2006)
to the expert’s opinion and should therefore be ignored.
7.2.5 Context management is a process implemented in case handling to reduce

contextual bias (Found and Ganas, 2013). This process might regulate
information provided by the mandating authority either in verbal and/or written
exchange, in the case file or even in the examined documents. According to
the infrastructure of the laboratory, a case manager might be implemented in
the process. The process should ensure that relevant context information is
Appendix 5 59/112
passed to the examiner (or second examiner respectively) and irrelevant

context information is removed.
7.3 Evaluation of the findings under H1 (same source proposition, e.g. Ms A

wrote the questioned text/signature.)
7.3.1 Evaluation of the findings under the same source proposition (usually H 1)
requires the examiner to discuss the (subjective) probability of the findings, if
the questioned writing was written by the same person as the known writings.
Generally, one would expect mostly similarities or in other words, that the
questioned writing lies within the variation observed in the known material.
7.3.2 If more differences (than expected) can be found, i.e. if the questioned
signature lies outside of the variation of the known material, the examiner
needs to consider if the differences can be explained by other circumstances.
Questions to consider depend on the case circumstances and could be as
follows:
 What is the (natural) variation of the writer based on the known material?
Does the questioned writing lay within the variation?
 Is the known material representative of the handwriting of the reference
writer? Could the differences be due to limited known material and thus
underestimated natural variation?
 Could the differences be due to a variant not covered in the known material
or poor comparability of the known material (e.g. due to a different writing
style)? Could the differences have happened accidentally?
 Could they be explained by a time difference between questioned and
known material?
 Do the differences span the entire signature/writing or are they only affecting
part of the signature/writing?
7.3.3 In certain cases, relevant context information is available and needs to be

considered, such as:
 If details about the poor health state of a person are known, could the
differences be explained by the presumed illness (or age)?
 If particular writing circumstances are an option, could the differences be
caused by them?
 If disguise is an option, could the differences be due to an attempted
disguise? In which case, did the person have to produce disguise while
other people were around and could the situation be anticipated?
Note, that depending on the known case circumstances not all of those
questions need to be considered.
7.3.4 At the end of the argument, the examiner needs to make an assignment of the
probability of the integral findings under the proposition H1 (same source)
based on the known case circumstances. The assignment of the probability
may have changed from the one given in the pre-assessment based on the
thorough examination. The assigned probabilities should be based on the
Appendix 5 60/112
value of the combined findings (consider dependencies between similarly

shaped signs), if available (statistical) research data2 thereof, the amount and
variation of the questioned material, the amount and variation of the known
material, limitations due to the questioned or known material, knowledge on
the influence of different factors on a person’s handwriting, as well as the
examiner’s experience.
7.4 Evaluation of the findings under H2 (different source proposition, e.g.

Someone other than Ms A wrote the questioned text/signature.)
7.4.1 Evaluation of the findings under the different source proposition (usually H 2)
requires the examiner to discuss the probability of the findings, given that the
questioned writing was written by a different person than the known writing.
Generally, one would expect differences of varying nature, depending on
possible explanations for the findings that need to be taken into account. It is
expected that the questioned writing lies outside of the variation observed in
the known material.
7.4.2 If a certain degree of similarity can be found, under the different source
proposition (H2) one of the most obvious explanations would be a simulation
of the questioned signature or of the questioned text. On the other hand, the
possibility of a chance match needs to be discussed as well.
7.4.3 To assess if such possibilities are plausible explanations for the findings, a
number of factors need to be considered:
 Can the degree of similarity be expected based on the length and

complexity of the writing, due to an attempt of simulation? What is the ease
of simulation of the signature (or text)? (Found, Rogers, Rowe and Dick,
1998)
 Could the similarities have occurred by chance between two persons (either
purely accidentally or due to the use of a similar writing style based on a
school model) and what is the probability of this happening to this particular
degree?
 Are there indications (i.e. case circumstances) that suggest, that the two
writers might have especially similar handwritings (e.g. same school, family
relation)?
 Do the differences affect rather dynamic features or rather the shape of the
writing?
 If a longer text or several signatures are questioned, do they show signs of
natural variation?
7.4.4 In certain cases, relevant context information is available and needs to be

considered, such as:
 Did the potential forger have the possibility to exercise the simulation?
2 Research on natural variation (intra variation) of a writer. Application of this knowledge to a

particular case requires examination of the variation in the known material.
Appendix 5 61/112
 Did the signature have to be produced in front of another person (imposed

identity)?
 Was the potential forger able to anticipate that they would have to produce
the simulation?
 Is it reasonable to assume that the potential forger had access to model
signatures/texts?
 Is anything known about the graphical ability of the potential forger (adept
penman)?
7.4.5 At the end of the argument, the examiner needs to make an assignment of the
probability of the integral findings under the proposition H2 (different source)
based on the known case circumstances. The assignment of the probability
may have changed from the one given in the pre-assessment based on the
thorough examination. The assigned probabilities should be based on the
value of the combined findings (consider dependencies between similarly
shaped signs), if available (statistical) research3 data thereof, the amount and
variation of the questioned material, the amount and variation of the known
material, limitations due to the questioned or known material, knowledge on
the influence of different factors on a person’s handwriting, as well as the
examiner’s experience.
7.5 Assessment of the likelihood ratio or verbal conclusion

7.5.1 The assigned probabilities (sections 7.3 and 7.4) are subjective, but informed
estimations based on the best available knowledge of the examiner and a
detailed examination/comparison of the Qn and Kn material. The probabilities
should be of a verbal (descriptive) or numerical nature.
7.5.2 By dividing the assigned probabilities for both propositions, the examiner
obtains a likelihood ratio, which is a logically sound way to express the
evidential strength.
7.5.3 If verbal expressions are applied to communicate the strength of the evidence,
they should strictly follow a fixed verbal scale, which should follow certain rules
as explained in the ENFSI Guideline (2015). A verbal conclusion scale is
basically an ordinal scale of evidential strength (Marquis, Biedermann, Cadola,
et al. 2016).
7.5.4 Verbal expressions follow either of the following schemes:
 The findings [strongly] support H1 over H2.

 The findings provide [strong] support for H1 over H2.
 The findings are X times more probable if H1 is true than if H2 is true.
7.5.5 It is also possible to transform numerically assigned likelihood ratios to the

verbal scale or to report both the numerical LR and the verbal equivalent.
3 Research on the frequency of certain characteristics in the population (inter variation; consider that
such studies likely only apply to the region where it has been conducted), as well as research on
characteristics appearing in simulations, complexity model.
Appendix 5 62/112
7.5.6 The likelihood ratio or the verbal expression states an overall opinion of the
examiner on the evidential strength.
7.6 Impact of the LR on the case

7.6.1 The Forensic Handwriting Examiner gives the strength of the evidence, in the
light of a set of propositions. The examiner therefore deals with probability of
the evidence given a proposition (in comparison with probability of the
evidence given an alternative proposition).
7.6.2 Within this framework, it is not the role of the Forensic Handwriting Examiner
to express an opinion about the probability of a proposition given the evidence
(for example: It is highly probable that Person A wrote the questioned writing).
This is called a posterior probability. Posterior in the sense that it represents
the updated probability of a proposition, by taking into account not only the
prior probabilities (see 7.5.4), but also the forensic evidence provided in the
form of a LR by the scientist.
7.6.3 The framework to obtain posterior probabilities is defined by the Bayesian

formula in the odds form, according to which the likelihood ratio (i.e., the
evidential strength; as obtained in section 3.3.4) combined with the ratio of the
prior probabilities result in the ratio of the posterior probabilities:
𝑃𝑟(𝐸|𝐻1 , 𝐼) 𝑃𝑟(𝐻1 |𝐼) 𝑃𝑟(𝐻1 |𝐸, 𝐼)

∙ =
𝑃𝑟(𝐸|𝐻2 , 𝐼) 𝑃𝑟(𝐻2 |𝐼) 𝑃𝑟(𝐻2 |𝐸, 𝐼)
Likelihood Ratio · Prior odds = Posterior odds
7.6.4 Prior probabilities of the propositions generally depend on knowledge of case

circumstances, witness statements, and other forensic evidence not known to
the handwriting examiner. Assessing the prior probabilities is therefore not the
task of the examiner, but lies within the competency of the court.
7.7 Traditional conclusion scales

7.7.1 Traditional scales of conclusions or opinions are still widely used in certain
legal frameworks and laboratory practices. By traditional conclusion scales, we
mean statements, which include posterior probabilities, such as “It is highly
probable that Person A wrote the questioned writing”. They state probabilities
of the propositions given the findings (of the handwriting examination) and not,
as expressed in the Likelihood Ratio, the probabilities of the findings given the
propositions.
7.7.2 According to Bayesian formula (7.6.3) prior probabilities need to be known to

be able to state posterior probabilities. Assessing the prior probabilities is not
the task of the examiner, since this requires knowledge of case circumstances,
witness statements, and other forensic evidence (cf.7.6.4).
7.7.3 Commonly used and described in the literature is an approach describing how
to state posterior probabilities in absence of the required knowledge of case
circumstances. In this approach prior probabilities need to be assumed. A
Appendix 5 63/112
common way to do this, is by assuming the prior probabilities for all

propositions to be equal (Köller et al., 2004). If this approach is used it is
recommended to clearly and explicitly state this assumption of the prior
probabilities in the report.
7.7.4 Where possible, use of logical reasoning is encouraged, and even when
traditional scales are required, they should be used separately and based on
logical reasoning with the further explanation of their scientific limitations.
7.8 Comment on certainty conclusions

7.8.1 Absolute conclusions are conclusions which exclude all the alternative
propositions but one. Thus, a positive absolute conclusion is the identification
(or individualisation) of a person as the writer of a questioned writing to the
exclusion of all others. A negative absolute conclusion is the exclusion of a
person as the writer of a questioned writing.
7.8.2 In general cases, absolute conclusions cannot be justified scientifically. If

identifications are stated in a conclusion, this statement remains the personal
opinion/conviction of the reporting examiner.
7.8.3 If absolute conclusions (especially identifications) are required by the legal

system, the report should include information about scientific limitations of the
method and state the conclusion in form of an opinion.
7.9 Documentation of the evaluation process

7.9.1 Clear and precise notes assist in rendering the evaluation process more
transparent (ENFSI 2015, sections 3.11 and 4.0). The evaluation process
should be well documented in both the case notes as well as in the report. It is
possible to use predefined forms (see section 11), where the relevant
questions need to be answered/assessed e.g. by filling in the information, by
using checking boxes, or by taking text notes on the evaluation process.
8. REPORTING THE RESULTS

8.1. Expert reports are required to follow accreditation instructions of the individual
laboratories.
8.2 Short report formats (e.g. investigative reports, preliminary reports, police
reports), which do not fulfil all requirements of an expert report, are acceptable
where required and in accordance with local regulations. In such a report
format, it should be clearly stated that this is not a formal expert report.
8.3 The following recommendations may assist to implement the evaluation

process to expert reports:
 The mandate questions and the propositions on which the evaluation is

based should be explicitly stated (see section 2.1).
 Relevant case circumstances and background information considered
during the examination should be disclosed.
Appendix 5 64/112
 The applied conclusion scale should be included (e.g. in the methods

section of the report).
 There should be separate sections/paragraphs on the findings of the
examination (i.e. which features are similar/dissimilar) and the evaluation of
the findings with regards to the propositions in question.
 This section can be titled e.g. “Evaluation of the findings” or “Discussion of
the findings”.
 The plausibility of the entire findings under each proposition should be
discussed, including any findings which might weaken the conclusion.
 At the end of the discussion of the findings, the conclusion should be stated
according to the conclusion scale applied.
 A separate section should summarize the conclusions, answering the
mandate questions. Usually this is the final section titled “Conclusions”.
 A statement that if either the propositions or the background information
change, the conclusions of the expert report may be required to be reviewed
should be included.
9. REFERENCES
Cook, R., Evett, I.W., Jackson, G., Jones, P.J. & Lambert J.A. (1998) A
hierarchv of propositions: deciding which level to address in casework,
Science & Justice 38(4) 231-239
Dror IE, Charlton D, Péron AE (2006) Contextual information renders experts

vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Sci Int. 156(1):74-8.
Doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017. Epub 2005 Dec 1. PMID: 16325362.]
ENFSI (European network of Forensic Science Institutes) (2015) Guideline for

evaluative reporting in Forensic Science – strengthening the evaluation of
forensic science results across Europe (STEOFRAE), available at:
http://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/m1_guideline.pdf
Found, B., Rogers, D., Rowe, V. and Dick, D. (1998). Statistical modelling of
experts’ perceptions of the ease of signature simulation, Journal of Forensic
Document Examination, 11, pp.73-99
Found B, Ganas J. (2013) The management of domain irrelevant context

information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Sci Justice.
53(2):154-8.
Köller, N., Nissen, K., Riess, M. & Sadorf, E. (2004) Probabilistische

Schlussfolgerungen in Schriftgutachten, Bundeskriminalamt (in German and
English)
Marquis R., Biedermann A., Cadola L., Champod C., Gueissaz L., Massonnet
G., Mazzella W.D., Taroni F., Hicks T., 2016, Discussion on how to implement
a verbal scale in a forensic laboratory: Benefits, pitfalls and suggestions to
avoid misunderstandings, Science & Justice 56(5), 364-370,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scijus.2016.05.009
Appendix 5 65/112
NIFS (National Institute of Forensic Science) (2017) An introductory guide to

evaluative reporting available from:
http://www.anzpaa.org.au/ArticleDocuments/
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) (2020) Forensic

Handwriting Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through
a Systems Approach. The Report of the Expert Working Group for Human
Factors in Handwriting Examination available from:
https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8282
Robertson, B., Vignaux, G.A. & Berger C.E.H., 2016, Interpreting Evidence:
Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom (2nd ed.), Chichester, UK: Wiley
Appendix 5 66/112
10. FLOW CHART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS
Appendix 5 67/112
11. NOTETAKING FORMS

11.1 The following form for notetaking (see subsequent pages) is illustrative, does
not include all of the relevant information and is principally based on an
Evaluative Reporting approach. If the FHE or organisation does not use
Evaluative Reporting the relevant boxes can be replaced or omitted. If the
questioned or reference samples are not homogenous they should be divided
into consistent parts and this form should be completed for each comparison
and evaluation. The forms can be either printed and filled by hand or edited.
The forms should be edited/adapted to meet the requirements of the
Laboratory's management system.
Appendix 5 68/112
Appendix 5 69/112
Appendix 5 70/112
Appendix 5 71/112
Appendix 5 72/112
Appendix 5 73/112
APPENDIX 6 – OVERVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FORENSIC

EXAMINATIONS AND COMPARISONS OF DIGITALLY CAPTURED
SIGNATURES AND HANDWRITTEN ENTRIES
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 This Appendix refers specifically to the examination of both Digitally Captured
Signatures (DCSs) and Digitally Captured Handwritten Entries (DCHs).
However, since the data of DCSs and DCHs can be treated alike and given
that the latter are uncommon, only the acronym “DCSs” (or “DCS” in singular)
will be used in this Appendix for reasons of clarity.
1.2 The purpose of the examination is to determine whether or not there is

evidence that two or more pieces of handwriting, which include at least one
DCS, have a common authorship. The approach relies on a visual analysis, a
comparison of the characteristics of the DCSs and an assessment of the
similarities and differences of both their static and dynamic characteristics. The
numerical data of DCSs facilitates the calculation of features and the
performance of statistical analysis which can also be a part of the examination.
1.3 The forensic handwriting examination of DCSs as opposed to conventional

pen and paper handwriting and signatures (which is specified in Appendix 3 of
this BPM) requires a modification of several aspects. These are detailed in this
Appendix.
2. SCOPE
2.1 The scope of this procedure covers the forensic examination and comparison
of DCSs, as well as conventional handwriting and signatures. This addresses
three different (but not mutually exclusive) combinations:
 questioned DCS(s) vs reference DCS(s),

 questioned DCS(s) vs reference conventional handwriting and signature(s),
 questioned conventional handwriting and signature(s) vs reference DCS(s).
3. PRINCIPLES
3.1 The principles, stated in section 3 of Appendix 3, also apply to the examination
of DCSs.
3.2 The outcome of an examination of a questioned DCS is a conclusion relating

to the question of whether an individual wrote a particular signature. While the
examiner has to take into account possible limitations regarding the integrity
of a signed “electronic document”, its determination goes beyond the scope of
this BPM. This responsibility resides with the field of forensic IT (see section
9.7 “Limitations concerning the conclusions in DCS examination cases”).
Appendix 6 74/112
4. HEALTH AND SAFETY

4.1 There are no specific health hazards or contamination risks when handling
DCSs.
4.2 The risks in handling conventional documents, that might concern DCSs as
well, are detailed in section 14 of the BPM and section 4 of the related
Appendix 3.
5. TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

5.1 For Terms and Definitions related to forensic handwriting examination in
general see Appendix 4. The following Terms and Definitions are related to
DCSs.
5.2 Definition of a DCS

5.2.1 A DCS is a handwritten signature which is digitized during its production. Even
though both DCSs and conventional handwriting and signatures are products
of writing behaviour, a DCS is capable of containing more information, such as
spatial coordinates, time and pressure4 values.
5.2.2 A DCS is commonly referred to in a number of ways, such as:
 biodynamic signature,
 biometric signature,
 digital handwritten signature,
 dynamic signature,
 handwritten electronic signature,
 online signature.
Note that some of these terms are similar to the legal term “electronic
signature”, which is more general, or the commonly used term “digital
signature”, that does not refer to handwriting at all (see paragraph 5.2.3).
5.2.3 Sometimes the terms “electronic signature” or “digital signature” are used to
refer to a DCS. However, “electronic signature” is a legal term5 that relates to
all kinds of electronic data, which is logically associated with other data in
electronic form and used by a signatory to sign. Thus, the term “electronic
signature” is more general and includes not only DCS, but also other forms of
signatures, such as a scan of a conventional signature or a typed name at the
end of an e-mail. The term “digital signature”, although it may seem to be a
synonym for the term “electronic signature”, typically refers to cryptographic
mechanism often used to implement electronic signatures.
5.2.4 A DCS is produced using a digitizing device, such as a signature pad, tablet
or smartphone, together with capturing software. Both components – hardware
4 Some capturing devices record force values. However, the term “pressure” will be used as a synonym
in this Appendix because it is a common term in forensic handwriting examination.
5 Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 2014 on
electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal market.
Appendix 6 75/112
and software – form a “DCS capturing solution”. In contrast to conventional

handwriting or signatures (also known as offline handwriting/signatures), which
may be scanned or photographed after their execution, DCSs are digitized
during the writing process.
5.2.5 Static characteristics (image) as well as the dynamic characteristics, such as

time related features (e.g. duration or velocity) and pressure, are essential for
a forensic examination of a DCS.
5.3 DCS and the notion of original signature

5.3.1 For the examination of conventional handwriting and signatures, the original
document (if available) should be examined to avoid loss of information. An
original handwriting/signature is the trace of a writing material (e.g. ink) made
on a substrate, typically paper. According to the principles detailed in
paragraph 3.1.2 of Appendix 3, “no two naturally written signatures are exactly
the same (assuming that a "signature" machine has not been used)”. In
contrast a DCS, being digital data, is not permanently embedded in a particular
substrate and can be incorporated in (or associated with) multiple electronic
documents.
5.3.2 Whereas the reproduction process of conventional handwriting or signatures,

e.g. by scanning or copying, leads to a loss of information, the digital
multiplication of a digitally signed document retains the same DCS information.
Against this backdrop, it is important, from a forensic point of view, to
differentiate between the examination of genuineness and integrity. The
examination of genuineness aims to determine “who made the signature” and
resides in the field of forensic handwriting examination. However, the
examination of the electronic document´s integrity, e.g. regarding possible
alterations or assembly of a signature into another document, may be a part of
other forensic disciplines, like forensic IT (see section 9.7 “Limitations
concerning the conclusions in DCS examination cases”).
5.3.3 For security reasons, the capturing software usually embeds a DCS into an
electronic document (e.g. a PDF) together with a digital signature (a non-
handwritten, cryptography-based element, see paragraph 5.2.3). The digital
signature should serve to prevent possible alterations of the document.
5.3.4 Typically, only an image of the DCS is shown in the signed PDF document
which may contain modified signature characteristics (e.g. absolute and
relative size, quality of the line, pressure etc.). Therefore, all characteristics of
DCSs should be analysed using relevant software (see section 5.4).
5.3.5 Some capturing solutions only save an image of a DCS with no access to
numerical data. Such a situation causes serious limitations to the forensic
examination, since only a part of a DCS’s characteristics is available for
analysis.
5.3.6 However, common solutions usually embed further DCS data in the PDF
document, such as spatial coordinates, time and pressure values. This
information is typically encrypted and made accessible only to a forensic
Appendix 6 76/112
handwriting examiner (FHE). It is essential for examining important signature

characteristics (especially dynamics, i.e. time related features).
5.4 Software
5.4.1 Three functions are important for DCS-related software: capturing, extraction
and analysis of data. Some programs include only one of these functions,
some more. Whereas DCS capturing software records data and stores it in an
electronic document, another software may be used to extract signature
information from a file for the purpose of forensic examination. The extraction
may require a specific certificate and a key to decrypt the signature data.
Analysis software allows to examine handwritten products by e.g. calculating
local and global features, plotting graphs, making visualisations and
animations, and often allows capturing reference DCS for a specific case.
While some of these functions may be found in common data processing
programs, analysis software dedicated to the examination of DCSs is often
provided by companies that sell capturing tools and is usually made available
to FHEs only. In most cases, it can only work with signatures that were
captured with products from the same software manufacturer (see section
5.6.4).
5.4.2 Some analysis software may modify DCS data without explicitly informing the
user. For example, the software may use smoothing algorithms for displaying
graphs of pressure values. In these circumstances the FHE should be aware
that a graph of the same data may look different in such a software, when
compared to a graph generated by a processing software, like a spreadsheet
application.
5.4.3 There is a significant difference between forensic analysis software that is

aimed at supporting the examination of DCSs performed by a FHE on one
hand, and software that serves for the automated authentication of a signatory
(verification of identity) on the other. The former one helps a FHE to analyse,
compare, illustrate and calculate features of DCSs. The latter is supposed to
provide a function of “automatic verification of authenticity” of newly input
signatures, on the basis of a comparison with previously enrolled (reference)
signatures. Automatic verification is not, however, equivalent to a forensic
evaluation process, because it compares limited number of features, and
doesn’t take into account alternative propositions or any factors that may affect
the signing process. Therefore, while automatic verification of DCS authenticity
could principally be an additional tool for a user institution in its authentication
policy, it cannot replace an experienced FHE in case work.
5.5 Numerical values

5.5.1 During the recording process of a DCS, a series of data points is captured.
This data is the core information of the DCS and it allows to calculate various
characteristics (such as duration, line/stroke length, velocity, acceleration) and
to create different kinds of illustrations (see section 5.7 “Illustrations of DCSs”
and figure 1). Typically, four data channels6 are registered (tab. 1):
6 The international standard ISO/IEC 19794-7/Amd.1:2015, Information technology — Biometric data

interchange formats — Part 7: Signature/sign time series data, uses the following channel names:
Appendix 6 77/112
 X-coordinates
These are the horizontal coordinates of the writing instrument’s tip on the
writing plane.
 Y-coordinates
These are the vertical coordinates of the writing instrument’s tip on the
writing plane.
 Pressure values
The magnitude of the pressure values/the pen tip force. The underlying
principle of capturing the pressure or pen tip force differs between hardware
products. The captured values are usually not given in IS units, such as
newton or pascal.
 Time stamp
The time elapsed since the first sample, usually recorded in milliseconds.
Point
X- X- Pressure Time
(sampling
coordinates coordinates values stamp
moment)
1 1108 580 338 0
2 1108 581 341 5
3 1110 584 340 10
4 1111 587 349 15
5 1113 590 348 20
6 1116 594 352 25
Tab 1. Example of DCS data
5.5.2 Some devices – especially tablets used by graphic artists or designers – may
provide additional information, such as pen orientation (rotation and different
angles).
5.6 File formats

5.6.1 Extracted numerical signature data can be saved, depending on the software
used, in various file formats such as:
 CSV (comma separated values) or TSV (tab separated values) – the data
of a sampling moment (X- and Y-coordinates, pressure and time stamps) is
shown in one row and can be viewed in common text editors
 ISO formats (full format, compact format, compression format, XML) – as
defined in ISO/IEC 19794-7:2014/Amd.1:2015
 Other conventional spreadsheet formats (i.e. XML) – readable with open
source software
 Proprietary file formats – readable only with software created by a particular
DCS capturing solution provider.
5.6.2 These files may also include metadata of a DCS.
X (x coordinate), Y (y coordinate), F (pen tip force), and T (time). The standard mentions in total 16
channels.
Appendix 6 78/112
5.6.3 All known formats include the numerical values. However, these values may
be stored in such a way that the coordinates are not directly readable (e.g. in
hash values). CSV, TSV and sometimes XML files can be directly used in
several data processing software, such as R, Excel or GnuPlot.
5.6.4 Even though different DCS solutions capture the same numerical data (X- and
Y-coordinates, pressure and time values), they may code these data in a
different way. This leads to the problem of limited compatibility and
comparability of DCS data acquired from different solutions. Therefore, in
order to perform examination, the DCS data may have to be normalized (i.e.
made compatible), preferably according to the ISO/IEC 19794-7 standard. This
can either be accomplished by capturing or analysis software, or by other (not
DCS specific) software.
5.7 Illustrations of DCSs

5.7.1 Numerical values can be illustrated in different ways, in order to help the expert
to analyse, compare and interpret the signature features. Illustrations may also
be created by analysis software described above (see section 5.4). Typical
illustrations show signatures in the following ways (see also figure 1):
 point by point (X, Y coordinates)

 point by point (X, Y coordinates), with colour and/or varying point size
(illustrating pressure values)
 with connected points (X, Y coordinates)
 with connected points (X, Y coordinates), with colour and/or varying point
size/line thickness (illustrating pressure values)
 with lines only (X, Y coordinates)
 with lines only (X, Y coordinates), with colour and/or varying line thickness
(illustrating pressure values)
 in playback animations (showing X, Y coordinates in time)
 as time dependent graphs (pressure values and passed time)
5.7.2 The list in paragraph 5.7.1 is not exhaustive as other combinations of both
direct and calculated data can also be illustrated.
(a) (b)
Appendix 6 79/112
(c) (d)
Fig. 1. (a) Point by point illustration, (b) connected points with colour, (c) lines only, (d) time dependent
graph.
5.8 Terminology
 Active area
Area of a digitizing device which allows capture of a DCS. In some DCS
capturing solutions the active area may be smaller than the display.
 Active stylus
Pen with electronic circuit that enables writing on signature pads,
smartphones, tablets, notebooks and other devices.
 Authentication
Verification of the signatory’s identity.
 Air movement (air stroke)

Writing movement executed above the surface of the active area or with
non-detectable pressure. Only technologies with active stylus can record
these movements (e.g. inductive systems).
 Capturing software
Software that enables capturing of a signature digitally, in order to sign an
electronic document or to provide a sample for examination.
 Conventional handwriting and signatures (offline handwriting and

signatures)
Handwriting and signatures produced with a writing instrument that leaves
a trace on a substrate (e.g. with a pen on a paper). The procedure for
forensic examination of this kind of writing products is presented in
Appendix 3.
 Crowding conditions
Spatial properties of a writing area (e.g. layout of a signing area).
 DCS/DCH
Digitally captured handwritten signature/handwritten entry.
Signature/handwritten entry, digitised by chronological sampling of the
writing movement, that consists of a series of data points (synonyms:
biometric signature, biodynamic signature, dynamic signature, digital
handwritten signature, handwritten electronic signature, online signature).
Appendix 6 80/112
 DCS capturing solution

Specific combination of a digitizing device and software used to capture
DCSs.
 Digital ink
Visual feedback shown on a digitizing device during the writing process.
 Digital signature
This term typically refers to cryptographically based elements. Digital
signatures are often used in combination with DCSs to secure the integrity
of an electronic document.
 Digitizing device (digitizer)

An input device used to capture DCSs by converting writing movements into
digital data (typically a signature pad, tablet, smartphone, special stylus,
etc.). Common devices are based on inductive (electromagnetic resonance
– EMR), resistive or capacitive sensors.
 Dynamic characteristics
Pressure and time related features of a DCS.
 Electronic document
Any electronic media content. In the context of DCSs it is typically a PDF
file (Portable Document Format).
 Electronic signature
General legal term for data in electronic form that is attached to, or logically
associated with, other data in electronic form and which is used by the
signatory to sign. This term includes both DCSs and digital (non-
handwritten) signatures.
 Force
See “Pressure”.
 Global features/characteristics (in contrast to local characteristics)

Characteristics related to a DCS as a whole (e.g. total time, total distance,
average pressure, etc.).
 Hash value
Unique numerical value that identifies the content of a file. It is produced by
a cryptographic algorithm (hash function) that reduces data from a variable
length (from file content) to a fixed length.
 Hybrid signature
A signature which was produced with ink on a substrate, and simultaneously
digitized during the writing process. Thus, one writing movement results in
two representations.
Appendix 6 81/112
 Inking pen (in context of DCSs)

Stylus, which is equipped with an inking tip but can also be used to record
a DCS on certain devices simultaneously.
 Local features/characteristics (in contrast to global characteristics)

Recorded/calculated characteristics of individual points of a DCS (such as
position, time, pressure, velocity, acceleration, etc.).
 Metadata of a DCS
Information describing the system/device(s) used, such as type/model,
operating system, time, technical information of the device (e.g. scaling
information of recorded data), GPS coordinates, etc.
 Pressure
Pressure or force values are given by DCS capturing solutions for each data
point in specific units. Even though from the physical point of view pressure
is force over area, in this context, the terms “force” and “pressure” are used
as synonyms.
 Static characteristics
Characteristics based on graphical representation (an image) of a DCS,
such as style, size, vertical and horizontal proportions, slant, alignment,
shape, construction, etc.
 Stylus
A pen used to produce a DCS.
 X coordinates
Recordings of the horizontal position of the tip of the writing instrument on
the active area.
 Y coordinates
Recordings of the vertical position of the tip of the writing instrument on the
active area.
6. PRESERVATION AND HANDLING OF ITEMS

6.1 For conventional documents see section 6 of Appendix 3.
6.2 Regarding digital evidence, as an additional precaution it may be useful to

create a working copy of a file, to ensure that the analysis software cannot
corrupt the original data (this may require the assistance of an IT-specialist).
When receiving the data files, both within or outside of the laboratory
environment, contemporaneous records shall be made. These records shall
be inserted into the resultant case file and list the items that were received, the
software and hardware used to record and/or decrypt the numerical signature
data, the source of the data (e.g. bank etc.) and physical signing conditions.
Appendix 6 82/112
6.3 In rare cases where the examiner might receive the original storage device,
the examiner should, depending on local regulations, either request a copy or
make a copy of the DCS’s document file. Altering the original file still residing
on the original storage device must be avoided.
6.4 Although working on a signed electronic document file that is also stored
elsewhere poses no risk of destroying evidence, a backup of the transmitted
data files should be made. Any alteration to the numerical DCS’s data has to
be recorded in the case notes.
6.5 The FHEs should be aware that, while working with numerical signature data,
they are handling information that is considered biometric. Therefore it may be
regulated by local/national legislation.
7. EQUIPMENT/INSTRUMENTATION/OPERATING CONDITIONS
7.1 For conventional handwriting and signatures see section 7 of Appendix 3.
7.2 The principle equipment for examining DCSs is a computer terminal equipped
with suitable analysis software (see section 5.4). Specialised DCS analysis
software is available from different providers of DCS capturing solutions.
General data analysis tools (e.g. spreadsheet or statistical tool) can be used
as well.
7.3 For the forensic analysis of DCS, it is recommended that the FHE has access
to software with the following features:
 Access to numerical values of DCS’s file (X, Y, pressure and time values).
 Playback (video) capabilities for DCSs.
 Pressure visualization.
 X, Y type graph support (for plotting different types of data).
 Time calculation (total time, contact time and time of air movements).
 Velocity calculations.
 Air movements visualization.
 Dimensional measurement capabilities.
7.4 Decryption of questioned material

7.4.1 In most cases, the numerical signature data is encrypted within the document
file and needs to be decrypted before examination. To achieve this, the
mandating authority should approach the DCS capturing solution
administrator, who is in possession of the decryption keys. After decryption,
signature numerical data, together with other relevant information, should be
delivered to the expert in a secure way.
7.4.2 It is also possible to request the decrypted data directly, but it should be
ensured that the available metadata is also obtained or is communicated by
the DCS capturing solution administrator. In that case, special attention should
be given to the question whether the decrypted data is unchanged and
corresponds to the signature displayed in the PDF file.
Appendix 6 83/112
7.4.3 Decryption of the DCS’s data must respect local rules and regulations.
8. CROSS REFERENCED MATERIAL

8.1 See section 8 of Appendix 3.
9. PROCEDURE
9.1 The flow chart shown in section 12 of this Appendix gives a schematic
representation of the steps undertaken in the course of a forensic examination
and comparison of DCSs.
9.2 Initial assessment

In addition to the procedure described in section 9 of the BPM, the initial
assessment should also include considerations as to whether the examiner
will obtain access to the decrypted numerical data and to the relevant analysis
software. Other factors that should be taken into account include availability of
all the information about the solution used to capture a questioned DCS and
physical signing conditions applied. In some cases, it might be necessary to
acquire additional software compatible with a questioned DCS, to request
access to such a solution or to ask for the numerical DCS’s data or other
information.
9.3 Feature assessment

The notes below detail some of the features that may be assessed in the
course of the examination. Feature assessment should be addressed on a
case by case basis, as not all of these features will be relevant in every case.
9.3.1 For conventional handwriting and signatures please refer to section 9.3 of
Appendix 3.
9.3.2 For DCSs the following considerations should be made:
 Type of digitizer sensor technology used:

o inductive/electromagnetic resonance (EMR)
based on the principle of electromagnetic induction between a pad and
an active stylus. Because the writing position is captured with induction,
and not by force or pressure related principles, writing movements with
the pen tip above the surface of a pad (air movements) can be registered.
A certain force is needed to register a contact between the pen and the
surface of a pad. As a result, strokes where the pen tip touches the
surface of a pad very weakly, can be coded as air movements.
o resistive
based on resistors that register pressure applied by any writing
instrument. Sensors usually have a default minimum readable force,
therefore strokes produced with very weak pressure may not be
recorded.
Appendix 6 84/112
o capacitive
based on detecting an instrument that is conductive (i.e. finger or a stylus
with a conductive tip). Therefore, many styli designed for resistive or
inductive technology will not work here, because they are not conductive.
Pure capacitive systems do not allow to differentiate between various
pressure levels. Thus, they only register whether there is a contact
between the writing instrument and the sensor.
o Others
 Characteristics of visual feedback (digital ink).
 Type of writing instrument used (e.g. stylus, finger etc.).
 Type of visual information displayed on the capturing device of a questioned

DCS (if applicable; figure 2). This information may influence several
handwriting characteristics (see section 9.3.1).
 File format in which the numerical data of a questioned DCS was stored.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 2. (a) No visual information on the active area, (b) single line as visual information on the active area,
(c) example of intense visual information projected on the signature pad for a bank transaction, (d)
example of visual information projected on the entire screen and selection of a specific area of the screen
as active area for a DCS.
9.3.3 Assess the amount of available material for examination:
 See section 9.3.1.6 of Appendix 3.

 Conventional samples could be used for comparison with a questioned DCS
and vice versa, considering possible limitations (see section 9.4).
Appendix 6 85/112
9.4 Reference material

9.4.1 To capture reference signatures during DCS case work, it is recommended to
use a digitizing device with a capturing software. Such a capturing solution
may be included in the aforementioned DCS analysis software or it might be
standalone. To obtain the best results, the software/hardware combination
should be as close as possible to the one used to capture a questioned DCS.
Information on the solution used might be found in the metadata of a
questioned DCS, in the PDF file or it may be communicated by the solution
administrator.
9.4.2 In case work, conventional signatures may be additionally used as reference

samples for the examination of a questioned DCS. If it is not possible to
obtain/acquire samples of DCSs, the reference material may consist of
conventional signatures only. In such a case, limitations in the comparability of
certain handwriting characteristics have to be considered (see section 9.7.4).
Some characteristics, such as writing velocity and force/pressure distribution,
are not directly comparable. Other characteristics, such as (fine) elements in
the signature/character shape or the signature size, could be influenced by the
different media.
9.5 Characteristics of DCSs

The following general and specific characteristics should be analysed and
compared in questioned and known DCSs. The results of a comparison of
these features (similarities and differences) should be noted.
9.5.1 General characteristics

Most DCS analysis software offer calculations for distances and other
measurements. However, the calculations or illustrations offered by the
analysis software could include errors that an FHE should be aware of. It is a
responsibility of the examiner to check if the data is correct. General
characteristics are:
 Style and legibility

See section 9.4.1 of Appendix 3.
 Size
Features such as the relationship between the size of the characters and
the writing lines. For DCSs, the size of the active area and the visual
information projected on the display may constrain the space for the
signature, which can affect recognizable features (see figure 2).
When comparing size features between DCSs and conventional
handwriting or signatures, the real dimension of the recorded DCSs needs
to be taken into account and replicated for the visual part of the examination.
This may be different depending on the scaling information of the DCS
capturing solution.
 Proportions
See section 9.4.1 of Appendix 3, taking into consideration that the relations
between height and width might be disturbed in DCS without scaling
information.
Appendix 6 86/112
 Spacing
See section 9.4.1 of Appendix 3, taking into consideration that the spacing
might be disturbed in DCS without scaling information.
 Layout
Placement of a signature on the active area. It can only be compared if the
crowding conditions of the disputed and reference DCSs were similar.
 Slope
See section 9.4.1 of Appendix 3.
 Pressure
DCS’s data can contain pressure values. These values can be analysed
and compared in various ways, such as visualized in colour graphs or time
plots and processed by different algorithms. Please note that the reliability
and validity of pressure data may differ between DCS capturing solutions.
 Duration
Data of DCSs usually contain time information which allow the calculation
and comparison of the total duration of execution as well as contact duration
and pen up duration. Also, the duration for selected segments may be useful
for an examination. When examining time related features, it must be
considered that some DCS capturing solutions also stop registering time
during pen lifts, which could result in distorted time related features.
There could be evidence of a slowly executed forgery, including a high level
of jerkiness in the writing line and unusually long execution times. If present,
these should be noted (see figures 3 and 4).
(a) (b)
(c)
Fig. 3. (a) Linear representation, (b) air movement representation and (c) pressure representation of
a genuine signature.
Appendix 6 87/112
(a) (b)
(c)
Fig. 4. (a) Linear representation, (b) air movement representation and (c) pressure representation of
a traced forgery. Note the difference in the time of execution of this traced signature (22.0 s), when
compared to the genuine signature in Figure 3 (3.2 s).
 Velocity
Velocity and its derivations (such as acceleration and jerk) are not recorded
directly during the execution of a DCS, but can be calculated based on the
data points (X, Y coordinates and time values). These characteristics can
be analysed and compared in various ways (e.g. regarding the mean value
of a signature, illustrations using a colour scale or time plots) and processed
by different algorithms.
 Pen lifts
As in the examination of conventional signatures, the number of pen lifts,
their location within a signature, as well as the connecting paths of
characters, should be part of the analysis and comparison.
 Sequence of strokes
The sequence of individual stroke execution can be determined/observed
in DCSs. This may be of high significance and should be analysed and
compared.
 Air movements trajectory (air strokes)

Trajectory of the pen in between contact (strokes) may be significant and
may exhibit a unique pattern (see figure 5). This should be observed and
compared (if applicable). The following considerations must be taken into
account when examining air movements:
o Some DCS capturing solutions do not record air movements, so these

features may not be available.
o DCS capturing solutions that record air movements have a cut off height
above which no movement is recorded. Some software will connect the
cut-off point and the return point with a single straight line. This should
Appendix 6 88/112
be taken into account and the examiner should know that this artefact
does not represent the real path that the pen/hand followed during
execution.
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 5. (a) Representation of signature, (b) representation of signature including air movements (red
lines), (c) representation of air movements only (red lines) and representation of the signature (grey
lines).
9.5.2 Specific characteristics

For individual character shape, proportions, construction, parts of the
signature, character combinations and connection of letters see 9.5.1 of
Appendix 3. Some DCS analysis software allows the isolation of data points
and, hence, representation of specific parts of the signature can be easily
isolated (figure 6).
Fig. 6. Segmented analysis of a complex signature by isolating parts of the signature through selection
of points recorded.
Appendix 6 89/112
9.5.3 Example of representations of DCS features (figures 7–10): the examples on

the left are representations of a genuine DCS, while a forgery is illustrated on
the right.
Fig. 7. Representations of DCSs showing the pen movements by connected lines. No air movements
are shown.
Fig. 8. Representations of DCSs showing the data points (X- and Y-coordinates) in different colours,
according to the recorded pressure levels. Air movements are shown in yellow (pressure level 0).
Fig. 9. Pressure time plots showing the pressure level in function of execution time.
Fig. 10. Velocity time plots showing the calculated velocity in function of execution time.
Appendix 6 90/112
9.6 Evaluation, interpretation and reporting

9.6.1 On completion of the examination, a FHE undertakes a detailed evaluation of
the relevant findings and their significance. These findings will include:
 Quantity and quality of signatures (see section 9.3 of Appendix 3).

 The DCS capturing solution and conditions (see section 9.3.2).
 Results of the comparison of general and specific characteristics (see
section 9.5).
9.6.2 The evaluation will include a determination of the strength and significance of
all of the relevant similarities and differences identified during the examination.
9.6.3 Once evaluated, a conclusion is formulated using the relevant conclusion

scale.
9.7 Limitations concerning the conclusions in DCS examination cases

9.7.1 The evaluation of a DCS examination by a FHE only reflects the genuineness
of a questioned DCS, but not the integrity of the electronic document (e.g.
whether or not the document’s data were altered after it had been signed).
Aspects regarding the integrity of an electronic document fall into the
competence of forensic IT.
9.7.2 By signing in the conventional way, the signatory creates a physical connection
between the signature and the paper document, which makes them
inseparable. However, signing an electronic document with a DCS is a very
different way of binding them together. It is based on cryptographic integration
of a DCS with a specific electronic document, which, despite being designed
to provide as much security as possible, does not make them inseparable.
9.7.3 This significant distinction in signing documents introduces specific limitations

concerning conclusions of forensic handwriting examination of DCSs. For
conventional handwriting and signatures, a FHE can conclude about a
signatory being responsible for signing a document. However, regarding an
electronic document, the expert can only conclude about a DCS’s authenticity,
since the examination of the connection between the DCS and the document
fall into the competence of forensic IT. Determining the signatory of the
electronic document could be a conclusion resulting from a combined forensic
examination, in which the handwriting examination would account only for the
genuineness of a questioned DCS (see section 5.3.2).
9.7.4 Examination of a DCS with no numerical data and with non-normalized

numerical data.
9.7.4.1 Examination of a graphical representation of a DCS only (e.g. an image of a

DCS on an electronic document that does not contain numerical data,
sometimes referred to as “flat PDF”) can be considered the equivalent of
examining a conventional signature from a non-original document (e.g. a copy,
see Appendix 3, paragraph 9.7).
Appendix 6 91/112
9.7.4.2 Graphical representations may vary in quality (figure 11). Therefore, when
examining a DCS only on the basis of an image, its quality should be evaluated
in order to determine whether the handwriting is sufficiently detailed for
comparison purposes.
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. (a) Poor quality image of a DCS, with many details lost, (b) good quality image of a DCS, with
more details available.
9.7.4.3 If the quality of the DCS image is poor, then comment should be made to this
observation and limited or no significance should be attributed to any
comparison made.
9.7.4.4 It should be considered and commented within the notes that numerical data
were not examined which caused limitations or even prevented the FHE from
examining certain features.
9.7.4.5 As stated in 5.6.4, it is possible that FHE will have to compare DCS non-
normalized data. Comparison of such data is feasible with consideration of the
inherent limitations of such an approach. The FHE should proceed with
caution, taking into account the different properties of the DCS capturing
solutions used.
10. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND COMPETENCY

10.1 The competencies relevant to the Examination and Comparison of Handwriting
are summarized in Appendix 1 “Key Knowledge Requirements for Forensic
Handwriting Examination”.
10.2 The competencies relevant to the Forensic Examination and Comparison of

DCSs include the following knowledge and abilities:
 handling of electronic evidence,

 definition of a DCS,
 limitations with regard to forensic examination of DCSs,
 use of software designed to capture, extract and analyse DCSs,
 handling numerical data of DCSs,
 plotting of DCSs illustrations and graphs,
 terminology as listed in paragraph 5.8,
 use of instrumentation listed in section 7,
 assessment of characteristics listed in section 9.5,
 evaluation of dynamic characteristics.
10.3 The specific quality procedures for each department should be detailed within
their Management System.
Appendix 6 92/112
11. REFERENCES
11.1 There are increasingly more publications on the subject of DCSs. It is
impossible to compile a complete list of all of these. The principle books and
articles on DCSs are detailed bellow.
Caligiuri, M., & Mohammed, L. (2012). The Neuroscience of Handwriting:

Applications for Forensic Document Examination. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Dewhurst, T. N., Ballantyne, K. N., & Found, B. (2016). Empirical investigation

of biometric, non-visible, intra-signature features in known and simulated
signatures. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(6), 659-675.
Dziedzic, T. (2016). Biometryczny podpis elektroniczny. In M. Goc, T.

Tomaszewski, & R. Lewandowski (Eds.), Kryminalistyka – jedność nauki i
praktyki. Przegląd zagadnień z zakresu zwalczania przestępczości (pp. 93–
102). Warsaw: Volumina.pl.
Dziedzic T., Ferenc A. (2020), Evaluation of the Suitability of Digitally Captured

Signatures Collected in the Electronic Confirmation of Receipt (Elektroniczne
Potwierdzenie Odbioru – EPO) Program for Forensic Handwriting
Examination, Problems of Forensic Sciences, 122–123, pp. 89–109.
Flynn, W.J. (2012). Conducting a forensic examination of electrically captured

signatures. Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document
Examiners, 15(1), 3–10.
Frontini, S., Giordano, G., Dellavalle, F., Parziale, A., & Marcelli, A. (2017).
Looking at the ink distribution for assessing writing modalities in forensic
handwriting examination. Proceedings of the 18th IGS Conference, 37-40.
Geistová-Čakovská, B. (2016). Digitálny vlastnoručný podpis a možnosti

písmoznaleckého skúmania. Kriminalistický sborník, 60(2), 60-64.
Geistová-Čakovská B., Kalantzis N., Dziedzic T., Fernandes C., Zimmer J.,
Branco M.J., Heckeroth J., Axelsson Spjuth K., Kupferschmid E., Vaccarone
P., Kerkhoff A. (2020), Recommendations for Capturing Signatures Digitally to
Optimize their Suitability for Forensic Handwriting Examination, Journal of
Forensic Sciences, available at: doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14627
Harralson, H.H. (2012). Forensic examination of electronically captured

signatures. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review, 9, 67-73.
Harralson, H.H. (2013). Developments in handwriting and signature

identification in the digital age. Waltham: Anderson Publishing.
Heckeroth, J., & Boywitt, C.D. (2017). Examining authenticity: An initial

exploration of the suitability of handwritten electronic signatures. Forensic
Science International, 275, 144-154.
Appendix 6 93/112
Heckeroth J, Kupferschmid E, Dziedzic T, Kalantzis N, Geistová-Čakovská B,

Fernandes C, Branco MJ, Spjuth KA, Kerkhoff A, Vaccarone P, Zimmer J,
Schmidt P, Features of Digitally Captured Signatures vs. Pen and Paper
Signatures: Similar or Completely Different?, Forensic Science International
(2020), available at:
doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.11058
Houmani, N., Garcia-Salicetti, S., & Dorizzi, B. (2012). On measuring forgery

quality in online signatures. Pattern Recognition, 45, 1004–1018.
ISO/IEC 19794-7:2014 Information technology – Biometric data interchange
formats – Part 7: Signature/sign time series data.
Kalantzis N., Platt A.W.G.: Digitally Captured Signatures (Biometric

signatures) and Forensic Handwriting Examination: A short introduction, Penal
Justice/Ποινική Δικαιοσύνη, ΠοινΔικ 10/2020, pp 1006-1012
Kalantzis N, Platt AWG. Digitally captured signatures: A method for the

normalization of force through calibration and the use of the zeta function. J
Forensic Sci. 2021;00:1–18, available at: doi.org/10.1111/1556-4029.14927
Kupferschmid, E. (2017). Statistical analysis of electronic signatures using

dynamic time warping: what is the value of simple signature elements?
(Unpublished diploma dissertation). Zurich Forensic Science Institute and
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich, Switzerland.
Linden, J., Marquis, R., Mazzella, W.D. (2017). Forensic analysis of digital
dynamic signatures: New methods for data treatment and feature evaluation.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 62, 382-391.
Linden, J., Marquis, R., Bozza, S., Taroni, F. (2018). Dynamic signatures: A
review of dynamic feature variation and forensic methodology. Forensic
Science International, 291, 216-229.
Mohammed, L. A., Found, B., Caligiuri, M.P., & Rogers, D. (2010). The
dynamic character of disguise behavior for text-based, mixed, and stylized
signatures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56, 136–141.
Mohammed, L. A. (2019). Forensic examination of signatures. London:

Academic Press.
Nicolaides, K. A. (2012). Using acceleration/deceleration plots in the forensic

analysis of electronically captured signatures. Journal of American Society of
Questioned Document Examiners, 15(2), 29–43.
Vera-Rodriguez, R., Fierrez, J., & Ortega-Garcia, J. (2017). Dynamic

signatures as forensic evidence: a new expert tool including population
statistics. In M. Tistarelli & C. Champod (Eds.), Handbook of Biometrics for
Forensic Science. Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp.
93-102). Cham: Springer.
Appendix 6 94/112
Zimmer, J. (2018). Kriminalistický význam digitálních vlastnoručních podpisů.

In Kriminalistika č. 4/2018, 260-279. Praha, Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky
Zimmer, J., Kalantzis, N., Dziedzic, T., Heckeroth, J., Kupferschmid, E.,
Fernandes, C., Geistová Čakovská, B., Branco, M., Axelsson Spjuth, K.,
Vaccarone, P., & Kerkhoff, A.: The challenge of comparing digitally captured
signatures registered with different software and hardware, Forensic Science
International, Volume 327, 2021, 110945, ISSN 0379-0738, available at:
doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2021.110945
Appendix 6 95/112
12. OVERVIEW OF THE EXAMINATION PROCESS
Appendix 6 96/112
APPENDIX 7 – SAMPLING
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The aim of this appendix is to provide a framework for the processes of
collecting handwriting samples for casework in the field of forensic handwriting
examination. This includes both conventional (pen-and-paper) and digitally
captured signatures and handwritten entries. It aims at guiding to obtain quality
samples, well-suited to questioned writings of a specific case, both within and
outside of the laboratory environment.
1.2 While the Appendix itself is mainly directed at laboratory-based staff, including
forensic handwriting experts (FHE), it also introduces a document directed at
lay people who may act as samplers (see section 9).
2. SCOPE
2.1 This document encompasses the whole procedure of sample collection, both
for request and course of business specimens. It covers the preparation stage,
at which a sampler becomes familiar with the case, develops a specific
approach to sampling and identifies and assists in preparing relevant
resources.
2.2 It also provides recommendations regarding the conduct of a sampling

session, at which writings are produced by a subject in front of the sampler,
who dictates what should be written and may give further instructions.
2.3 Specific guidelines for the process of DCS sampling, as well as for collection
of course of business samples are formulated in the sections 6 and 7. The
need for proper documentation of all activities is emphasised and advice is
provided on how to do this (see sections 5.3 and 6.4).
3. DEFINITIONS AND TERMS

3.1 For Definitions and Terms related to forensic handwriting examination in
general see Appendix 8. For Definitions and Terms related to DCS in general
see Appendix 6.
3.2 Additionally, the following terminology is used in this Appendix:
 Sampler – an individual who carries out the sampling process, such as

a FHE, a technician, or other laboratory staff member. It can also be a
representative of a third-party authority, such as a police officer, a judiciary,
etc. There can be more than one sampler present at the sampling session.
 Subject – an individual who is requested to produce handwritten samples
at the sampling session or whose course of business writing are to be
collected.
 Sampling instruction for lay people – list of recommendations on how to
collect request samples, prepared by a FHE for a non-FHE laboratory staff
Appendix 7 97/119
member. Sampling instructions for lay people can be case-specific or

general (see section 9).
 Sampling session – a legal action/proceeding at which a subject is to
produce requested handwritten specimens under the supervision of a
sampler.
4. INITIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 The quantity of reference samples to be collected for casework is at the
decision of the Reporting Scientists, and is dependent on the nature of the
questioned material. In particular the specimens should reflect natural
variability of the writer's handwriting, and correspond to the questioned writings
in terms of writing style and contemporaneousness.
4.2 Subsequently the decision whether or not further samples need to be obtained
and submitted in a particular case (request and/or course of business) belongs
to the Reporting Scientist, who must take into consideration local regulations.
The decision is taken upon initial examination of the writings in question and
available reference samples (if any).
5. SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURE

5.1 Preparation stage
5.1.1 The sampler should become familiar with the questioned writings in terms of
the writing implement and substrate used to produce them, as well as their
style and line quality. This is essential in defining what kind of reference
samples are required. It may also be beneficial for the sampler to become
familiar with the supposed circumstances in which the questioned writings
were produced.
5.1.2 If possible, the sampler should become familiar with known samples from the
subject by conducting a preliminary assessment. This may be helpful in
recognising disguise attempts at the sampling session and avoidance of
certain styles of writing or certain types of signatures.
5.1.3 It is recommended that the sampler determines whether or not the subject
speaks the respective local official language and considers whether or not the
assistance of an interpreter will be required.
5.1.4 Before the sampling session starts, the sampler should prepare relevant
resources required for the process, which will include the following:
 writing implement(s) – it is recommended to use writing implement of the

same type as the one the questioned writings were produced with, at least
for part of the samples;
 writing substrate – it is recommended to use standardized forms for
sample collection (i.e. forms with pre-printed information; see section 8).
These forms may be customised by adding case-specific content (e.g., pre-
printed lines or boxes) to mimic the layout of the questioned document(s);
Appendix 7 98/119
 writing surface – if this is not justified by the circumstances of the case,

the substrate on which samples are produced should not be placed directly
on hard or rough surface (e.g., on a desk) during sampling session.
Therefore, a smooth underlay such as a desk pad or a pile of paper should
be provided to allow for best possible representation of writing pressure;
 dictated text – a text that will be dictated to the subject. It is recommended
to use a standard text that includes all the letters that appear in a relevant
alphabet, both in uppercase and in lowercase, as well as all the numerals.
Alternatively, random text can be used, e.g. part of an article from
a newspaper or a passage from a book;
 case-specific entries – names, words, expressions, texts, numbers etc.
that contain wording identical or similar to the questioned writings.
5.2 Sampling sessions

5.2.1 Immediately before the start of the session the identity of the subject must be
verified.
5.2.2 The questioned handwriting must not be shown to the subject, neither in
original nor in a copy.
5.2.3 The subject should be discouraged to make corrections or cross-outs in the

samples produced. In case of a mistake, they should leave original entry
untouched and repeat it correctly. The sampler should note any circumstances
where this occurs.
5.2.4 All the samples should be dictated to the subject at such a pace that they can
keep up with notation.
5.2.5 The samples should be as close to the questioned writings as possible in terms
of their type, style and complexity. However, in some cases it may be
necessary to also collect samples in different styles, to better recognise the
range of writing habits of the subject.
5.2.6 It is recommended that the samples produced on request, or part of them,

mirror the questioned writings in terms of their wording. However, it is
recommended to collect samples with different content such as a standard or
a random text, alphabet (in lower-case and/or upper-case letters), numbers,
all types of signatures, etc.
5.2.7 The subject can be instructed to write in a certain style(s), such as block
capitals, disconnected lower-case cursive lower case.
5.2.8 The subject may be instructed to write with an unaccustomed hand or a hand
that is claimed to be unaccustomed.
5.2.9 The subject can be instructed to adopt a different position from the standard
one while producing samples e.g. standing with a sampling form placed on a
desk, standing with a form placed against a wall or sitting with a form placed
on one’s knees.
Appendix 7 99/119
5.2.10 Any instructions given to a subject, such as the adoption of a non-standard

writing position or a particular style, should be noted on the specific sample
sheet (see paragraph 5.3.3).
5.2.11 If any abnormal behaviour of the subject is observed, that may result from a
disguise attempt, it should also be noted on a relevant sample sheet and/or in
the protocol.
5.3 Documentation
5.3.1 Sample sheets may contain the following information:
 case number/identifier
 date of collection
 full name and signature of the subject
 full name(s) and signature(s) of all the samplers present at the sampling
session
 space for annotations (optionally).
5.3.2 Relevant sample form should be prepared, that may contain the following
information:
 date and place of the sampling session

 details of the subject (including ID number)
 mandating authority of the case
 case numbers
 number of sample forms
 signature of the sampler
 signature of the subject.
5.3.3 Sample sheets and/or forms should also contain space for annotations to allow
the sampler for adding comments e.g., about a non-standard writing position,
writing with an unaccustomed hand, any instructions given to the subjects
while writing, abnormal writing behaviour, etc.
5.3.4 A template sampling sheet and a template sampling form are presented at the
end of this Appendix. These designs can be freely used and adapted to the
needs of individual laboratories.
6. DCS/DCH SAMPLE COLLECTION PROCEDURE

6.1 The sample collection procedure described in section 5 in general apply to the
sampling of digitally captured signatures and handwritten entries (DCS/DCH)
as well. DCS/DCH-specific steps and considerations are presented below (for
reasons of clarity, only the acronym “DCS” will be used).
6.2 Preparation Stage

6.2.1 The sampler should prepare a relevant hardware and software combination(s)
to use for sample collection. In order to facilitate subsequent data analysis, it
is recommended that the same hardware and software, with the same settings,
Appendix 7 100/119
is used to collect samples, as the one the questioned writings were captured
with. If this is not possible, the use of digitizer based on the same sensor
technology is recommended. Other hardware or/and software can be used as
well, if they allow capturing numerical DCS data of acceptable quality.
6.2.2 Circumstances of the collection protocol of the questioned DCS are to be

replicated if possible. The following aspects could be relevant when
encountered during signature execution:
 position of a digitizer (angle, height, firm/yielding underlay),

 writing position of a subject (standing/sitting/unusual),
 crowding conditions (information displayed on the surface of a pad),
 size of active area,
 visual feedback (if the samples are to be produced directly on the surface
of a pad),
 physical properties of writing implement and active area interaction (type of
stylus, type of tip, tether, type of surface of active area).
6.2.3 If the specimens are to be compared to the questioned conventional writings,

collection of hybrid samples can be purposeful. Hybrid samples are produced
with ink on a substrate, and simultaneously digitized during the writing process
(thus, one writing movement results in two representations). This will allow to
capture numerical DCS data whilst granting the subject a “pen and paper
experience”. If adhesive notes are used, they should be of similar size to the
signature pad’s display.
6.3 Sampling session

6.3.1 The sampler initiates the software for the DCS collection and checks if the
software and hardware are functional.
6.3.2 Depending on the intended use of the collected sample, the sampler decides
whether the digitizer should display any information.
6.3.3 Depending on the case circumstances, the subject may be instructed to press
a certain button/not to press any button after producing a sample, which may
affect the final air movement trajectory.
6.3.4 The subject should be given the appropriate stylus and instructions on where
and when to sign on the active area of the selected digitizer. Depending on the
case circumstances it may be purposeful to instruct a subject to write with a
finger.
6.3.5 If a subject is not familiar with signing/writing on a digitizer, the number of

collected samples may be increased accordingly.
6.3.6 For the collection of hybrid samples, a paper substrate is positioned on top of
the digitizer and the sample is executed with a compatible inking pen. The
substrate should be fixed to the digitizer to avoid displacement during sample
collection. After each sample is produced, the sampler should remove the used
substrate before placing a new one.
Appendix 7 101/119
6.4 Documentation and Legal Considerations

6.4.1 Upon completion of the collection phase, the sampler should save the
collected samples and name the corresponding file(s) accordingly. If required
by the law or quality management rules, the files may be encrypted.
6.4.2 Substrates used for hybrid signatures should be marked and stored safely
(e.g., by stapling them to a blank sampling sheet).
6.4.3 Because numerical DCS data are considered biometric data, they can be
subject to local regulations. These regulations may be different from those
related to conventional samples. The legal aspects of the collection, use and
storage of said biometric data should be considered by the sampler. It may be
required to obtain a written consent from a subject for these actions or to inform
them about the conditions of access, storage and treatment of the collected
samples.
7. COURSE OF BUSINESS SAMPLES

7.1 Preparation stage
7.1.1 If the decision to request course of business samples is taken, potential
sources are selected. This may include (not exclusively) the following
documentations: case files, administrative documents such as
ID/passport/driving license applications, personnel files from the workplace,
tax files, private writings from any party involved, etc.
7.1.2 The selection should be based on the case circumstances. For example, if
deteriorated writings on a last will are questioned it may be beneficial to collect
health records of the alleged testator which were dated around the same time
as the date on the questioned document.
7.2 Obtaining samples

7.2.1 Depending on local regulations the samples may be obtained directly or
requested via the mandating authority.
7.2.2 Depending on the suitability of the acquired samples, more specimens may be
requested from the same or different sources.
7.3 Considerations
7.3.1 All the obtained samples must be verified with regard to their origin. It is not
uncommon for official documents to be completed and even signed by persons
other than the individual to whom they have been issued.
7.3.2 Particular caution should be exercised in the case of specimens obtained from
the parties involved, as they may include samples produced by a different
person than the actual subject (e.g. simulated signatures).
Appendix 7 102/119
8. SAMPLING SHEET AND FORM

8.1 Template sampling sheet
8.1.1 The following sheets for sampling (see subsequent pages) is illustrative and
may not include all of the relevant information. The sheets should be
edited/adapted to meet the requirements of the Laboratory's management
system.
Laboratory Form
LABORATORY LABORATORY NAME Identification No.
LOGO AND CONTACT DETAILS Lab. Case
Reference No.
This area is intended for the samples that will be produced.

It can remain blank or be customised with printed lines, boxes, etc.
.............................................................................. ................................................................
Subject’s full name Subject’s signature, date
.............................................................................. ................................................................
Full Name of Sampler 1 Signature of Sampler 1, date
.............................................................................. ................................................................
Full Name of Sampler 2 Signature of Sampler 2, date
Comments
from .................................................................................................... Page No.
Sampler(s) ....................................................................................................
Appendix 7 103/119
8.2 Template sampling form/minutes
Appendix 7 104/119
9. INSTRUCTIONS FOR LAY PERSONS

9.1 The following set of instructions can be used to assist lay persons in collecting
handwriting samples.
Appendix 7 105/119
Appendix 7 106/119
10. FLOW CHART OF THE HANDWRITING SAMPLING PROCESS
Appendix 7 107/119
APPENDIX 8 - TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN

FORENSIC HANDWRITING EXAMINATION
SCOPE
The following list, although not exhaustive, includes many of the basic terms used in
the forensic examination of handwriting and signatures. The bulk of these terms have
come from the Modular Forensic Handwriting Method– Version 2016 (MFHM). The
list at the end includes some of the abbreviations used in the BPM.
Term Illustration
(MFHM)
Accidental
An unusual feature or
characteristic, deemed to be
unintentional, not seen in the bulk
of the handwritten material.
Allograph (MFHM)
A particular design of a character,
where there can be more than one
design per character e.g. capital
letter A is a different allograph than
a cursive letter a.
Artefacts (MFHM)
Remnants. For example, trash
marks are artefacts of a copying
process; writing is an artefact of
human movement.
Authentic (MFHM)
When a document/ handwriting is
genuine.
Authorship
The process of writing a document.
Baseline (MFHM)
The real or assumed line upon
which handwriting is produced.
Chance match (MFHM)

The occurrence of naturally
produced handwriting by two
different writers that displays the
same handwriting characteristics
such that the writing cannot be
distinguished.
Appendix 8 108/119
Character (MFHM)
Letters, numbers and symbols;
graphemes.
Collected Specimen (adapted from
MFHM)
Samples of a known person's

handwriting/signatures that have
been produced throughout the
course of day-to-day business.
These will be either collected by
the examiner or submitted by
relevant parties for the purposes of
comparison against questioned
material. Examples include letters,
diaries, business records, forms or
cheques. These can also be
known as normal course specimen
or course of business specimens.
Common Authorship (MFHM)
A comparison of handwriting
where the examiner is asked to
give an opinion on whether a
group of questioned documents
have been produced by the same
writer.
Comparable (MFHM)
Material that is suitable for
comparison e.g. similar style, case.
Complexity (MFHM)
A combination of speed, style and
construction; how difficult the
writing is to simulate.
Complex signature
Concatenations (MFHM)
Connections.
Connections (MFHM)
The union of two characters e.g. in
cursive writing.
Consistent (MFHM)
Similar, regular throughout a
passage of writing or between
multiple signatures.
Appendix 8 109/119
Construction (MFHM)
How a character, word or signature
has been produced, including
features of number, direction and
sequence of strokes.
Copybook style (adapted from MFHM)

A writing book of letters printed for
imitation and used in schools as a
teaching pad / a book, used by
children in school, containing
examples of writing which school
students have to copy.
Disguise (MFHM)
A deliberate attempt to hide normal
writing habits.
Dissimilarities (MFHM)
Differences between writings.
Drag (pen drag) (MFHM)
A very fine ink stroke where the
writer has not completely lifted the
pen from the surface of the page
between strokes.
Embellishments (MFHM)
Flourishes added to the writing.
Excluded (MFHM)
Material that is not examined.
Feature (MFHM)
An aspect of a character or the
handwriting in general.
Flourish (MFHM)
An ornamental or exaggerated pen
stroke.
Fluency (MFHM)
The speed and skill level of the
writing. Fluent
Appendix 8 110/119
Non-fluent
Forgery (MFHM)
Non-genuine writing.
Formation Variation (MFHM)
Differences in the method of
constructions of a character.
Fundamental Difference (MFHM)
A repeated difference in the
questioned material that is
significantly different to the
specimen material.
Grapheme
A single unit or character in a
writing system (a, b, c, A, B, C, 1,
2, 3 etc)
Guidelines (MFHM)
Lines that show a route to follow
when simulating handwriting or
signatures. These can exist in the
form of pencil lines or indentations
or be created by the use of
transmitted light shone through a
document containing the entries to
be copied.
Height Relationship (MFHM)
The size differences within and
between handwritten characters.
Indented Impressions (MFHM)
Markings or imprints on the paper
surface caused by the pressure of
a writing instrument on the pages
or paper above.
Oblique lighting Electrostatic detection

Inter-comparison (MFHM)
Comparison of handwriting on
more than one document or by
more than one writer.
Known handwriting (Kn)
Proven samples of handwritten
material from a nominated person,
used to compare against the
questioned handwriting.
Appendix 8 111/119
Legible (MFHM)
Decipherable or readable material.
Limitation (MFHM)
A constraint to the examination,
comparison or opinion formation
process e.g. non-original
documents, limited quantity of
material.
Line Quality (MFHM)
A measure of fluency of
handwriting, the degree of
regularity; a product of a
combination of features including
speed, skill, fluency and pen
pressure of the writing stroke.
Motor Memory (muscular) (MFHM)
The memory for motor skills that
controls movements such as that
of the hand during the writing
process.
Movement (MFHM)
The motion of the writing stroke.
Natural Variations (MFHM)
Normal or usual deviations that
occur in repeated specimens of a
person’s handwriting.
Appendix 8 112/119
Non-Original (MFHM)
Reproduction of a document e.g.
photocopied, faxed, scanned,
Original
photographed.
Non-original
Normal Behaviour (MFHM)
Any specimen or writing executed
without an attempt to control or
alter its usual quality of execution.
Also referred to as natural
behaviour.
Overwritten(MFHM)
Writing over other writing.
Pause (MFHM)
A temporary interruption to a
stroke without removing the
writing instrument from the writing
surface.
Pen Direction (MFHM)
The direction the pen moves to
produce a character, connection
or signature.
Pen Lift (MFHM)
An interruption in a stroke caused
by removing the writing instrument
from the writing surface.
Pictorially consistent/similar
(MFHM)
Having a similar shape, allowing a

more detailed examination to take
place (in relation to signatures).
Pictorially inconsistent/
dissimilar (MFHM)
Having a dissimilar shape,
meaning no further comparison
can take place (in relation to
signatures).
Appendix 8 113/119
Preliminary Examination (MFHM)

An initial examination preceding
the main examination; giving initial
observations regarding the ability
to examine the items in question.
Proportion (MFHM)
The height and spatial aspects
within or between characters.
Questioned handwriting (Qn)
(MFHM)
Handwriting or signatures about

which the authenticity or
authorship is in doubt.
Repeated Difference (MFHM)
Differences between writings that
are seen consistently throughout
the passages of writing.
Requested Specimen (MFHM)
Specimen samples written
specifically for the purpose of
comparison to questioned material
(as requested by an investigator).
Retouching (MFHM)
To add lines or strokes in order to
correct, improve or alter.
Signature
A handwritten (and often stylized)
depiction of someone's name,
nickname, or even a simple "X" or
other mark that a person writes on
documents as a proof of identity
and intent.
Appendix 8 114/119
Similarities (MFHM)
Having mutual resemblance and a
number of features in common.
Simplistic (MFHM)
Characterised by non-complex
characters or strokes
Simulated/ simulation (MFHM)

An attempt to copy or reproduce
writing or a signature.
Size/size relationship (MFHM)
The dimensional associations
within and between handwritten
characters.
Skill (MFHM)
How well an individual is able to
produce and repeat the formation
of handwritten characters.
Slant/slope (MFHM)
The angle or offset that the
handwriting is produced at, relative
to the baseline.
Spacing (MFHM)
The distance between characters,
words or lines.
Spatial Relationship (MFHM)

The height or width relationships
between characters, words or lines
of writing.
Speed (MFHM)
How fast the writing is produced.
Spurious (MFHM)
In relation to signatures: one Known
created without the apparent use
of a model or template such that it
bears no resemblance to the
Appendix 8 115/119
genuine signature. May also be

referred to as fabricated. Questioned
Striation marks (MFHM)

Fine voids in the ink line of a
ballpoint pen caused by
obstructions between the ball and
housing wiping the ink off the ball.
These can be used to determine
pen direction.
Structural Features (MFHM)
Features relating to the
construction of handwriting e.g.
number, position, order and
direction of strokes.
Style (MFHM)
The overall pictorial design of the
handwriting e.g. printed, cursive,
uppercase, lowercase.
Substrate (MFHM)
The material that is written on,
usually paper.
Tapering (MFHM)
Narrowing of the pen line due to
the speed of the movement used
or a lifting of the pen as a stroke is
started or finished. Tapering is a
characteristic that can assist in
determining the speed at which a
character has been produced.
Terminal Stroke (MFHM)
The final stroke of a character or
word.
Tracing (MFHM)
Writing that is created by placing a
model underneath the paper to be
written on, such that the model can
be observed through the paper to
provide guidelines to assist in
copying.
Appendix 8 116/119
Trash Marks (MFHM)

Remnants from the printing,
scanning or photocopying process
used to produce a document.
They can be placed on to a
document through defects or dirt
in the machinery or from markings
on the scanning surface.
Tremor (MFHM)
A lack of smoothness in the
writing trace, due to lack of skill,
deliberate control of the writing
implement, or involuntary
movement e.g. illness.
Turning Points (MFHM)

Position at which a pen line
changes direction.
Unnatural(MFHM)
A movement that is forced or
difficult to execute. Unnatural
writing is seen when a person is
trying to disguise their own writing,
or trying to simulate that of
another writer. Some
characteristics of unnatural writing
movements include slow speed,
low fluency, stops or pauses in the
pen line or blunt endings and
beginnings.
Variation (MFHM)
Having one or more forms of a
character or word in a naturally of
handwriting.
Writing Implement (MFHM)
Any tool used to create a
handwritten marking on a
substrate. Typically however, used
to describe the use of a pen,
pencil, marker or crayon to create
words on paper.
Appendix 8 117/119
Writing Surface (MFHM)

The underlying surface that a
substrate (e.g. paper) is placed on
whilst handwriting is produced.
The writing surface will impact on
the pictorial qualities of the writing
and can impose a limitation on
comparisons.
ABBREVIATIONS
ACE-V Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation and Verification
CE/PT Collaborative Exercises and Proficiency Tests
DCS/DCH Digitally captured handwritten signature/handwritten entry
FHE Forensic Handwriting Examiner
Kn Known material
LR Likelihood ratio
QA Quality Assurance
Qn Questioned material
1
Appendix 8 118/119
APPENDIX A – AMENDMENTS AGAINST PREVIOUS EDITIONS
Approved
Details of Amendment
Date
1 07 Dec 2015 Issue of original Best Practice Manual
Appendix 3 – Addition of new paragraph
relating to Signatures in Section 9.3.1.7
Appendix 3 – Addition of new Section 10
dealing with Assessment, Interpretation and
Reporting
Appendix 4 – Multiple changes to layout and
2 30 June 2018
content to reflect content of the
Documentation of Forensic Handwriting
Method: A Modular Approach – Version 2016
(MFHM).
Appendix A – Amendments to the
Appendices
General – The document is now referred to
by Edition number rather than Version
number.
BPM – Addition of additional three
paragraphs in the Scope detailing differences
3 15 October 2020
in FHE and Graphology
Appendix 1
Appendix 3
Appendix 5 – completely new section to the
BPM
This edition of the Best Practice Manual has
been significantly changed and restructured
with several new Appendices added. There
4 22 September 2022
have been some amendments to small parts
of the previous text, including a slight
adjustment in the title of the BPM.
Appendix A 119/119
Best Practice Manual for the Forensic handwriting examination

ENFSI-BPM-FHX-01
Edition 04 – #######

Manual de Boas Práticas-Handwriting-Ed.-4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual de Boas Práticas-Handwriting-Ed.-4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manual de Boas Práticas-Handwriting-Ed.-4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ENFSI-BPM-FHX-01 (Ed.

04) BPM for the Forensic Handwriting Examination

Best Practice Manual

ENFSI’s position on Best Practice Manuals

European Union’s Internal Security Fund — Police

BEST PRACTICE MANUAL FOR THE

APPENDIX 1 - KEY KNOWLEDGE REQUIREMENTS FOR FORENSIC

APPENDIX 2 - TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF FORENSIC

APPENDIX 3 - OVERVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FORENSIC

APPENDIX 4 - COMPARISON PHASE OF A FORENSIC

APPENDIX 5 - EVALUATION PHASE OF A FORENSIC

APPENDIX 6 - OVERVIEW PROCEDURE FOR FORENSIC

APPENDIX 7 - SAMPLING ………………………………………………………. 97

APPENDIX 8 - TERMINOLOGY AND ABBREVIATIONS USED IN

APPENDIX A - AMENDMENTS AGAINST PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF

documents may reveal information which is invaluable to the investigation of a crime,

3. DEFINITIONS AND TERMS

Forensic Handwriting Examiner - An individual that undertakes a Forensic Handwriting

Forensic Handwriting Examination - The scientific examination and comparison of

4.1.1 Roles and responsibilities

 Reporting Scientist – The forensic scientist responsible in a particular

 Analyst/Assistant – An individual carrying out general casework

Both of these roles can be carried out by the same individual.

4.1.2 Competence requirements

The following experience and areas of competence would be expected as the

 Reporting Scientist - Knowledge of the theories, analytical techniques

 Analyst/Assistant - Knowledge of the theories, analytical techniques and

4.1.3 Training and Assessment

 laboratories should have written standards of competence for each role, a

 the assessment of competence can be accomplished through a

A trainee should only be recognised as competent when he or she has been

4.2.3 Only appropriate and properly operating equipment should be employed in

4.3 Reference materials

4.4 Facilities and environmental conditions

When necessary correct anti-contamination procedures must be used to prevent

4.5 Materials and Reagents

5.2 Examination Techniques and Methods

5.3 Analysis Protocols

Non-destructive tests should be given priority.

5.4 Case Records

 the items that were submitted to the laboratory, the information

 any changes, or additions to the items

Wherever possible, written records should be made on standardised forms, examples

5.5 Peer Review

5.5.1 Critical Findings

 they make a significant contribution to the findings in the case, and

5.5.2 Technical Findings

 is there adequate documentation for all the materials examined

6. VALIDATION AND ESTIMATION OF UNCERTAINTY

6.1.1 Validation requires as a minimum that:

 there is an agreed requirement for the technique or procedure;

6.2 Estimation of uncertainty of measurement

 any laboratory should at least attempt to identify all the components of

As such it is necessary to demonstrate that the issue of "uncertainty components" is

 Handwriting that has been submitted as photocopies, photographs or

6.2.3 Complexity of handwriting/signatures - Handwriting and signature

 Training - all examiners undergo a formal, scheduled and detailed, training

Forensic Handwriting Examiners should participate in regular externally generated

The laboratory QA Manager should be informed of all CE/PTs undertaken.

9.2 Assessment at the laboratory