1、Designation: E1658 08Standard Terminology forExpressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1658; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision
2、. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon () indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This terminology is intended to assist forensic documentexaminers in expressing conclusions or opinions based on theirexaminations.
3、1.2 The terms in this terminology are based on the report ofa committee of the Questioned Document Section of theAmerican Academy of Forensic Science that was adopted asthe recommended guidelines in reports and testimony by theQuestioned Document Section of the American Academy ofForensic Science an
4、d the American Board of Forensic Docu-ment Examiners.22. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:3E444 Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic DocumentExaminers3. Significance and Use3.1 Document examiners begin examinations from a pointof neutrality. There are an infinite number of gradations ofopinion
5、toward an identification or toward an elimination. It isin those cases wherein the opinion is less than definite thatcareful attention is especially needed in the choice of languageused to convey the weight of the evidence.3.2 Common sense dictates that we must limit the terminol-ogy we use in expre
6、ssing our degrees of confidence in theevidence to terms that are readily understandable to those whouse our services (including investigators, attorneys, judges, andjury members), as well as to other document examiners. Theexpressions used to differentiate the gradations of opinionsshould not be con
7、sidered as strongly defined “categories”.These expressions should be guidelines without sharply de-fined boundaries.3.3 When a forensic document examiner chooses to use oneof the terms defined below, the listener or reader can assumethat this is what the examiner intended the term to mean. Toavoid t
8、he possibility of misinterpretation of a term where theexpert is not present to explain the guidelines in this standard,the appropriate definition(s) could be quoted in or appended toreports.3.4 The examples are given both in the first person and inthird person since both methods of reporting are us
9、ed bydocument examiners and since both forms meet the mainpurpose of the standard, that is, to suggest terminology that isreadily understandable. These examples should not be regardedas the only ways to utilize probability statements in reports andtestimony. In following any guidelines, the examiner
10、 shouldalways bear in mind that sometimes the examination will leadinto paths that cannot be anticipated and that no guidelines cancover exactly.3.5 Although the material that follows deals withhandwriting, forensic document examiners may apply thisterminology to other examinations within the scope
11、of theirwork, as described in Guide E444, and it may be used byforensic examiners in other areas, as appropriate.3.6 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate sa
12、fety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.4. Terminology4.1 Recommended Terms:identification (definite conclusion of identity)this is thehighest degree of confidence expressed by document exam-iners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has
13、noreservations whatever, and although prohibited from usingthe word “fact,” the examiner is certain, based on evidencecontained in the handwriting, that the writer of the knownmaterial actually wrote the writing in question.ExamplesIt has been concluded that John Doe wrote thequestioned material, or
14、 it is my opinion or conclusion thatJohn Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.1This terminology is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 onForensic Sciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.90 onExecutive.Current edition approved Aug. 15, 2008. Published
15、 October 2008. Originallyapproved in 1995. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E1658 04. DOI:10.1520/E1658-08.2McAlexander T.V., Beck, J., and Dick, R., “The Standardization of Handwrit-ing Opinion Terminology,” Journal of Forensic Science, Vol 36, No. 2, March 1991,pp. 311319.3For referenced
16、ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Consho
17、hocken, PA 19428-2959. United StatesNOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information1strong probability (highly probable, very probable)theevidence is very persuasive, yet some critical fe
18、ature orquality is missing so that an identification is not in order;however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questionedand known writings were written by the same individual.ExamplesThere is strong probability that the John Doe ofthe known material wrote the questioned material, or it is
19、 myopinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe ofthe known material very probably wrote the questioned mate-rial.DISCUSSIONSome examiners doubt the desirability of differentiatingbetween strong probability and probable, and certainly they mayeliminate this terminology. But those exami
20、ners who are trying toencompass the entire “gray scale” of degrees of confidence may wishto use this or a similar term.probablethe evidence contained in the handwriting pointsrather strongly toward the questioned and known writingshaving been written by the same individual; however, it fallsshort of
21、 the“ virtually certain” degree of confidence.ExamplesIt has been concluded that the John Doe of theknown material probably wrote the questioned material, or it ismy opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doeof the known material probably wrote the questioned material.indications (ev
22、idence to suggest)a body of writing has fewfeatures which are of significance for handwriting compari-son purposes, but those features are in agreement withanother body of writing.ExamplesThere is evidence which indicates (or suggests)that the John Doe of the known material may have written thequest
23、ioned material but the evidence falls far short of thatnecessary to support a definite conclusion.DISCUSSIONThis is a very weak opinion, and a report may bemisinterpreted to be an identification by some readers if the reportsimply states, “The evidence indicates that the John Doe of the knownmateria
24、l wrote the questioned material.” There should always beadditional limiting words or phrases (such as “may have” or “but theevidence is far from conclusive”) when this opinion is reported, toensure that the reader understands that the opinion is weak. Someexaminers doubt the desirability of reportin
25、g an opinion this vague, andcertainly they cannot be criticized if they eliminate this terminology.But those examiners who are trying to encompass the entire “grayscale” of degrees of confidence may wish to use this or a similar term.no conclusion (totally inconclusive, indeterminable)Thisis the zer
26、o point of the confidence scale. It is used when thereare significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in thequestioned and/or known writing or a lack of comparablewriting, and the examiner does not have even a leaning oneway or another.ExamplesNo conclusion could be reached as to whether ornot
27、the John Doe of the known material wrote the questionedmaterial, or I could not determine whether or not the John Doeof the known material wrote the questioned material.indications did notthis carries the same weight as theindications term that is, it is a very weak opinion.ExamplesThere is very lit
28、tle significant evidence presentin the comparable portions of the questioned and knownwritings, but that evidence suggests that the John Doe of theknown material did not write the questioned material, or Ifound indications that the John Doe of the known material didnot write the questioned material
29、but the evidence is far fromconclusive.See Discussion after indications.probably did notthe evidence points rather strongly againstthe questioned and known writings having been written bythe same individual, but, as in the probable range above, theevidence is not quite up to the “virtually certain”
30、range.ExamplesIt has been concluded that the John Doe of theknown material probably did not write the questioned material,or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that theJohn Doe of the known material probably did not write thequestioned material.DISCUSSIONSome examiners prefer to state
31、 this opinion: “It isunlikely that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questionedmaterial.” There is no strong objection to this, as “unlikely” is merelythe Anglo-Saxon equivalent of “improbable”.strong probability did notthis carries the same weight asstrong probability on the identificati
32、on side of the scale; thatis, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned andknown writings were not written by the same individual.ExamplesThere is strong probability that the John Doe ofthe known material did not write the questioned material, or inmy opinion (or conclusion or determinat
33、ion) it is highlyprobable that the John Doe of the known material did not writethe questioned material.DISCUSSIONCertainly those examiners who choose to use “un-likely” in place of “probably did not” may wish to use “highly unlikely”here.eliminationthis, like the definite conclusion of identity,isth
34、ehighest degree of confidence expressed by the documentexaminer in handwriting comparisons. By using this expres-sion the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that thequestioned and known writings were not written by the sameindividual.ExamplesIt has been concluded that the John Doe of theknown
35、material did not write the questioned material, or it ismy opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doeof the known material did not write the questioned material.DISCUSSIONThis is often a very difficult determination to make inhandwriting examinations, especially when only requested e
36、xemplarsare available, and extreme care should be used in arriving at thisconclusion.4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, there isusually a necessity for additional comments, consisting ofsuch things as reasons for qualification (if the availableevidence allows that determination), suggesti
37、ons for rem-edies (if any are known), and any other comments that willshed more light on the report. The report should stand alonewith no extra explanations necessary.4.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions:4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by documentexaminers are troublesome because t
38、hey may be misinterpretedto imply bias, lack of clarity, or fallaciousness and their use isdeprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly inane (such as“make/no make”) that they will not be discussed. The use ofE1658 082others is discouraged because they are incomplete or misused.These expressions i
39、nclude:possible/could havethese terms have no place in expertopinions on handwriting because the examiners task is todecide to what degree of certainty it can be said that ahandwriting sample is by a specific person. If the evidence isso limited or unclear that no definite or qualified opinion canbe
40、 expressed, then the proper answer is no conclusion.Tosay that the suspect “could have written the material inquestion” says nothing about probability and is thereforemeaningless to the reader or to the court. The examinershould be clear on the different meanings of “possible” and“probable,” althoug
41、h they are often used interchangeably ineveryday speech.consistent withthere are times when this expression isperfectly appropriate, such as when “evidence consistentwith disguise is present” or “evidence consistent with asimulation or tracing is present, but “the known writing isconsistent with the
42、 questioned writing” has no intelligiblemeaning.could not be identified/cannot identifythese terms areobjectionable not only because they are ambiguous but alsobecause they are biased; they imply that the examiners taskis only to identify the suspect, not to decide whether or notthe suspect is the w
43、riter. If one of these terms is used, itshould always be followed by “or eliminated”.similarities were noted/differences as well as similaritiesthese expressions are meaningless without an explanation asto the extent and significance of the similarities or differ-ences between the known and question
44、ed material. Theseterms should never be substituted for gradations of opinions.cannot be associated/cannot be connectedthese terms aretoo vague and may be interpreted as reflecting bias as theyhave no counterpart suggesting that the writer cannot beeliminated either.no identificationthis expression
45、could be understood tomean anything from a strong probability that the suspectwrote the questioned writing; to a complete elimination. It isnot only confusing but also grammatically incorrect whenused informally in sentences such as.“ I no identified thewriter” or “I made a no ident in this case.”in
46、conclusivethis is commonly used synonymously with noconclusion when the examiner is at the zero point on thescale of confidence. A potential problem is that some peopleunderstand this term to mean something short of definite (orconclusive), that is, any degree of probability, and theexaminer should
47、be aware of this ambiguity.positive identificationThis phrase is inappropriate becauseit seems to suggest that some identifications are morepositive than others.strong reason to believethere are too many definitions ofbelieve and belief that lack certitude. It is more appropriateto testify to our co
48、nclusion (or determination or expertopinion) than to our belief, so why use that term in a report?qualified identificationAn identification is not qualified.However, opinions may be qualified when the evidence fallsshort of an identification or elimination.ASTM International takes no position respec
49、ting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentionedin this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the riskof infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility.This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years andif not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or fo
