1、Designation: E 1658 04Standard Terminology forExpressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1658; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revisi
2、on. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. Asuperscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1. Scope1.1 This terminology is intended to assist forensic documentexaminers in expressing conclusions based on their examina-tion.1.2 This
3、 terminology is based on the report of a committeeof the Questioned Document Section of the American Acad-emy of Forensic Science which was adopted as the recom-mended guidelines in reports and testimony by the QuestionedDocument Section of the American Academy of ForensicScience and the American Bo
4、ard of Forensic DocumentExaminers2,3.2. Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:2E 444 Guide for Description of Work of Forensic DocumentExaminers3. Significance and Use3.1 Document examiners begin their handwriting examina-tions from a point of complete neutrality. There are an infinitenumber of gra
5、dations of opinion toward an identification ortoward an elimination. It is in those cases wherein the opinionis less than definite that careful attention is especially needed inthe choice of language used to convey the weight of theevidence.3.2 Common sense dictates that we must limit the terminol-o
6、gy we use in expressing 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. Wemust be careful that the expressions we use in separating th
7、egradations of opinions do not become strongly defined “cat-egories” that will always be used as a matter of convenience;instead, these expressions should be guidelines without sharplydefined boundaries.3.3 When a forensic document examiner chooses to use oneof the terms defined below, the listener
8、or reader can assumethat this is what the examiner intended the term to mean. Toavoid the 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 g
9、iven both in the first person and inthird person since both methods of reporting are used bydocument examiners and since both forms meet the mainpurpose of the standard, i. e., to suggest terminology that isreadily understandable. These examples should not be regardedas the only ways to utilize prob
10、ability statements in reports andtestimony. In following any guidelines, the examiner 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 with handwrit-ing, forens
11、ic document examiners may apply this terminologyto other examinations within the scope of their work, asdescribed in Guide E 444, and it may be used by forensicexaminers in other areas, as appropriate.3.6 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns, if any, associated with it
12、s use. It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety 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 c
13、onfidence expressed by document exam-iners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has 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
14、in question.1This terminology is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 onForensic Sciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.02 onQuestioned Documents.Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2004. Published November 2004. Originallyapproved in 1995. Last previous edition approved
15、in 1996 as E 1658 96.2McAlexander, 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 ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, orcontact ASTM Customer Service at ser
16、viceastm.org. For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information, refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.1Copyright ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.ExamplesIt has been concluded that John Doe wrote theq
17、uestioned material, or it is my opinion or conclusion thatJohn Doe of the known material wrote the questionedmaterial.strong probability (highly probable, very probable)theevidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature orquality is missing so that an identification is not in order;however, t
18、he 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 myopinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doeof the known mater
19、ial very probably wrote the questionedmaterial.DISCUSSIONSome examiners doubt the desirability of differentiatingbetween strong probability and probable, and certainly they mayeliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying toencompass the entire “gray scale” of degrees of confidence
20、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 the“ virtually certain” degree of confidence.ExamplesIt has been concluded that
21、the John Doe of theknown material probably wrote the questioned material, or itis my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the JohnDoe of the known material probably wrote the questionedmaterial.indications (evidence to suggest)a body of writing has fewfeatures which are of significance for
22、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 writtenthe questioned material but the evidence falls far short of thatnecessary to support a defi
23、nite 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 knownmaterial wrote the questioned material.” There should always beadditional limiting words
24、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 reporting an opinion this vague, andcertainly they cannot be criticized if they eliminate
25、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 zero point of the confidence scale. It is used when thereare significantly limiting f
26、actors, 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 the John Doe of the known material wrote the questionedmaterial, or I could not de
27、termine whether or not the JohnDoe of 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 little significant evidence presentin the comparable portions of the questioned and k
28、nownwritings, 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 materialdid not write the questioned material but the evidence is farfrom conclusive.See Discussion after indications.probably d
29、id 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” range.ExamplesIt has been concluded that the John Doe of theknown material probabl
30、y did not write the questionedmaterial, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination)that the John Doe of the known material probably did notwrite the questioned material.DISCUSSIONSome examiners prefer to state this opinion: “It isunlikely that the John Doe of the known material wrote the qu
31、estionedmaterial.” 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 identification side of the scale; thatis, the examiner is virtually certain that the questione
32、d 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, orin my opinion (or conclusion or determination) it is highlyprobable that the John Doe of the known material did notwrite the
33、 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,isthehighest degree of confidence expressed by the documentexaminer in handwriting com
34、parisons. 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 material did not write the questioned material, or it ismy opinion (or conclusion
35、or determination) that the JohnDoe of the known material did not write the questionedmaterial.DISCUSSIONThis is often a very difficult determination to make inhandwriting examinations, especially when only requested exemplarsare available, and extreme care should be used in arriving at thisconclusio
36、n.4.1.1 When the opinion is less than definite, there is usuallya necessity for additional comments, consisting of such thingsas reasons for qualification (if the available evidence allowsthat determination), suggestions for remedies (if any areknown), and any other comments that will shed more ligh
37、t onthe report. The report should stand alone with no extraexplanations necessary.E16580424.2 Deprecated and Discouraged Expressions:4.2.1 Several expressions occasionally used by documentexaminers are troublesome because they may be misinterpretedto imply bias, lack of clarity, or fallaciousness an
38、d their use isdeprecated. Some of the terms are so blatantly inane (such as“make/no make”) that they will not be discussed. The use ofothers is discouraged because they are incomplete or misused.These expressions include:possible/could havethese terms have no place in expertopinions on handwriting b
39、ecause 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 expressed, then the proper answer is no conclusion.Tosay that the suspect “could have
40、 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,” although they are often used interchangeably ineveryday speech.consistent withthere are times
41、 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 questioned writing” has no intelligiblemeaning.could not be identified/cannot identif
42、ythese 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 writer. If one of these terms is used, itshould always be followed by “or eliminated”.s
43、imilarities 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 questioned material. Theseterms should never be substituted for gradations of opinions.cannot
44、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 could be understood tomean anything from a strong probability that the suspectwrote th
45、e 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.”inconclusivethis is commonly used synonymously with noconclusion when the examiner is at
46、 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 be aware of this ambiguity.positive identificationThis phrase is inappropriate because
47、it 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 conclusion (or determination or expertopinion) than to our belief, so why use that term
48、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 respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentionedi
49、n 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 for additional standardsand should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments wi
