<CHAP NUM="16" ID="CH.00.016">chapter 16
<FM><TTL>Document and Voice Examination</TTL>
<KTSET><TTL>Key Terms</TTL>
<KT>charred document</KT>
<KT>erasure</KT>
<KT>exemplar</KT>
<KT>indented writings</KT>
<KT>infrared luminescence</KT>
<KT>natural variations</KT>
<KT>obliteration</KT>
<KT>questioned document</KT>
<KT>voiceprint</KT></KTSET>
<OBJSET><TTL>Learning Objectives</TTL>
<P>After studying this chapter you should be able to:
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>Define the term <ITAL>questioned document</ITAL></P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>Know what common individual characteristics are associated with handwriting</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>List some important guidelines for the collection of known writings for comparison to a questioned document</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>Recognize some of the class and individual characteristics of printers and photocopiers</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>List some of the techniques document examiners use to uncover alterations, erasures, obliterations, and variations in pen inks</P></OBJ>
<OBJ><P><INST>< </INST>Recognize the three parameters of speech that a voiceprint represents</P></OBJ></P></OBJSET></FM>
<CASE NUM="1" TY="CS"><TTL>The Unabomber</TTL>
<P>In 1978, a parcel addressed to a Northwestern University professor exploded as it was being opened by a campus security officer. This was the first of a series of bomb-containing packages sent to universities and airlines. The perpetrator was dubbed UN (university) A (airlines) BOM; hence, <ITAL>the Unabomber</ITAL>. The explosives were usually housed in a pipe within a wooden box. The explosive ingredients generally were black powder, smokeless powder, or an ammonium nitrate mix. The box was filled with metal objects to create a shrapnel effect on explosion. The device typically had the initials “FC” punched into it. The first Unabomber fatality came in 1985. The Unabomber surfaced again in 1993, mailing bombs to two university professors. Their injuries were not fatal, but his next two attacks did result in fatalities.</P>
<P>In 1995, the case took an unexpected turn when the Unabomber promised to end his mad spree if his 35,000-page typewritten “Manifesto” sent to the <ITAL>New York Times</ITAL> and <ITAL>The Washington Post</ITAL> were published. The <ITAL>Manifesto</ITAL> proved to be a long, rambling rant against technology, but it offered valuable clues that broke the case. David Kaczynski realized that the <ITAL>Manifesto</ITAL>’<ITAL>s </ITAL>writing style and the philosophy it espoused closely resembled that of his brother Ted. Linguistic experts carefully pored over the <ITAL>Manifesto</ITAL>’<ITAL>s </ITAL>content. Ted Kaczynski was arrested in Montana in 1996. Inside his ramshackle cabin were writings similar to the <ITAL>Manifesto,</ITAL> three manual typewriters, and bomb-making materials. Forensic document examiners matched the typewritten <ITAL>Manifesto</ITAL> to one of the typewriters recovered from the cabin.</P></CASE>
<BM><P>Ordinarily, the work of the document examiner involves examining of handwriting and typescript to ascertain the source or authenticity of a questioned document. However, document examination is not restricted to a mere visual comparison of words and letters. The document examiner must know how to use the techniques of microscopy, photography, and even such analytical methods as chromatography to uncover successfully all efforts, both brazen and subtle, designed to change the content or meaning of a document. Alterations of documents through overwriting, erasures, or the more obvious crossing out of words must be recognized and characterized as efforts to alter or obscure the original meaning of a document. The document examiner uses his or her special skills to reconstruct the written contents of charred or burned paper or to uncover the meaning of indented writings found on a paper pad after the top sheet has been removed.</P>
<P>Any object that contains handwritten or typewritten markings whose source or authenticity is in doubt may be referred to as a <KT>questioned document</KT><SIDEIND NUM="1" ID="MN2.16.001"/>. Such a broad definition covers all of the written and printed materials we normally encounter in our daily social and business activities. Letters, checks, drivers’ licenses, contracts, wills, voter registrations, passports, petitions, and even lottery tickets are the more common specimens received in crime laboratories to be examined. However, we need not restrict our examples to paper documents. Questioned documents may include writings or other markings found on walls, windows, doors, or any other objects.</P>
<P>Document examiners possess no mystical powers or scientific formulas for identifying the authors of writings. They apply knowledge gathered through years of training and experience to recognize and compare the individual characteristics of questioned and known authentic writings. For this purpose, the gathering of documents of known authorship or origin is critical to the outcome of the examination. Collecting known writings may entail considerable time and effort, and their collection may be further hampered by uncooperative or missing witnesses. However, the uniqueness of handwriting makes this type of physical evidence, like fingerprints, one of few definitive individual characteristics available to the investigator, a fact that certainly justifies an extensive investigative effort.</P>
<H1>Handwriting Comparisons</H1>
<P>Document experts continually testify that no two individuals write exactly alike. This is not to say that there cannot be marked resemblances between two individuals’ handwritings, because many factors make up the total character of a person’s writing. Perhaps the most obvious feature of handwriting to the layperson is its general style. As children we all learn to write by attempting to copy letters that match a standard form or style shown to us by our teachers. The style of writing acquired by the learner is that which is fashionable for the particular time and locale. In the United States, for example, the two most widely used systems are the Palmer method, first introduced in 1880, and the Zaner-Blosser method, introduced in about 1895. To some extent, both of these systems are taught in nearly all fifty states.</P>
<P>The early stages that accompany the learning and practicing of handwriting are characterized by a conscious effort on the part of the student to copy standard letter forms. It is not surprising that many pupils in a handwriting class tend at first to have writing styles that are similar to one another, with minor differences attributable to skill in copying. However, as initial writing skills improve, a child normally reaches the stage where the nerve and motor responses associated with the act of writing become subconscious. The individual’s writing now begins to take on innumerable habitual shapes and patterns that distinguish it from all others. The document examiner looks for these unique writing traits.</P>
<P>The unconscious handwriting of two different individuals can never be identical. Individual variations associated with mechanical, physical, and mental functions make it extremely unlikely that all of these factors can be exactly reproduced by any two people. Thus, variations are expected in angularity, slope, speed, pressure, letter and word spacings, relative dimensions of letters, connections, pen movement, writing skill, and finger dexterity. Furthermore, many other factors besides pure handwriting characteristics should be considered. The arrangement of the writing on the paper may be as distinctive as the writing itself. Margins, spacings, crowding, insertions, and alignment are all results of personal habits. Spelling, punctuation, phraseology, and grammar can be personal and, if so, combine to individualize the writer.</P>
<P>In a problem involving the authorship of handwriting, all characteristics of both the known and questioned documents must be considered and compared. Dissimilarities between the two writings are a strong indication of two writers, unless these differences can logically be accounted for by the facts surrounding the preparation of the documents. Because any single characteristic, even the most distinctive one, may be found in the handwriting of other individuals, no single handwriting characteristic can by itself be taken as the basis for a positive comparison. The final conclusion must be based on a sufficient number of common characteristics between the known and questioned writings to effectively preclude the chance of their having originated from two different sources.</P>
<P>What constitutes a sufficient number of personal characteristics? Here again, there are no hard-and-fast rules for making such a determination. The expert examiner can make this judgment only in the context of each particular case.</P>
<P>When the examiner receives a reasonable amount of known handwriting for comparison, there is usually little difficulty in finding sufficient evidence to determine the source of a questioned document. Frequently, however, circumstances may prevent a positive conclusion or may permit only the expression of a qualified opinion. Such situations usually develop when an insufficient number of known writings are made available for comparison. Although nothing may be found that definitely points to the questioned and known handwriting being of a different origin, not enough personal characteristics may be present in the known writings that are consistent with the questioned materials.</P>
<P>Difficulties may also arise when the examiner receives questioned writings containing only a few words, all deliberately written in a crude, unnatural form or all very carefully written and thought out so as to disguise the writer’s natural style—a situation usually encountered with threatening or obscene letters. It is extremely difficult to compare handwriting that has been very carefully prepared to a document written with such little thought for structural details that it contains only the subconscious writing habits of the writer. However, although it may be relatively easy to change one’s writing habits for a few words or sentences, the task of maintaining such an effort grows more difficult with each additional word. When an adequate amount of writing is available to the examiner, the attempt at total disguise may fail. This was illustrated in the attempt by Clifford Irving to forge letters in the name of the late industrialist Howard Hughes in order to obtain lucrative publishing contracts for Hughes’s life story. <LINK LINKEND="FG.16.001">Figure <FIGIND NUM="1" ID="FG.16.001"/>16–1</LINK> shows the forged signatures of Howard Hughes along with Clifford Irving’s known writings. By comparing these signatures, document examiner R. A. Cabbane of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service detected many examples of Irving’s personal characteristics in the forged signatures. For example, note the formation of the letter <ITAL>r</ITAL> in the word <ITAL>Howard</ITAL> on lines 1 and 3, as compared with the composite on line 6. Observe the manner in which the terminal stroke of the letter <ITAL>r</ITAL> tends to terminate with a little curve at the baseline of Irving’s writing and the forgery. Notice the way the bridge of the <ITAL>w</ITAL> drops in line 1 and also in line 6. Also, observe the similarity in the formation of the letter <ITAL>g</ITAL> as it appears on line 1 as compared with the second signature on line 5.</P>
<P>The document examiner must also be aware that writing habits may be altered beyond recognition by the influence of drugs or alcohol. Under these circumstances, it may be impossible to obtain known writings of a suspect written under conditions comparable to those at the time the questioned document was prepared.</P>
<H1>Collection of Handwriting Exemplars</H1>
<P>It should be fairly obvious by now that collection of an adequate number of known writings (<KT>exemplars</KT><SIDEIND NUM="2" ID="MN2.16.002"/>) is most critical for determining the outcome of a comparison. Generally, known writings of the suspect furnished to the examiner should be as similar as possible to the questioned document. This is especially true with respect to the writing implement and paper. Styles and habits may be somewhat altered if a person switches from a pencil to a ballpoint pen or to a fountain pen. The way the paper is ruled, or the fact that it is unruled, may also affect the handwriting of a person who has become particularly accustomed to one type or the other. Known writings should also contain some of the words and combinations of letters present in the questioned document.</P>
<P>The known writings must be adequate in number to show the examiner the range of <KT>natural variations</KT><SIDEIND NUM="3" ID="MN2.16.003"/> in a suspect’s writing characteristics. No two specimens of writing prepared by one person are ever identical in every detail. Variation is an inherent part of natural writing. In fact, a signature forged by tracing an authentic signature can often be detected even if the original and tracing coincide exactly, because no one ever signs two signatures exactly alike.</P>
<P>Many sources are available to the investigator for establishing the authenticity of the writings of a suspect. An important consideration in selecting sample writings is the age of the genuine document relative to the questioned one. It is important to try to find standards that date closely in time to the questioned document. For most typical adults, basic writing changes are comparatively slow. Therefore, material written within two or three years of the disputed writing is usually satisfactory for comparison; as the age difference between the genuine and unknown specimens becomes greater, the standard tends to become less representative.</P>
<P>Despite the many potential sources of handwriting exemplars, it may be difficult or impossible to obtain an adequate set of collected standards. In these situations, handwriting may have to be obtained voluntarily or under court order from the suspect. There is ample case law to support the constitutionality of taking handwriting specimens. In the case of <ITAL>Gilbert</ITAL> v. <ITAL>California,</ITAL><FNIND NUMBER="1"/>1 the Supreme Court upheld the taking of handwriting exemplars before the appointment of counsel. The Court also reasoned that handwriting samples are identifying physical characteristics that lie outside the protection privileges of the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, in the case of <ITAL>United </ITAL><ITAL>States</ITAL> v. <ITAL>Mara,</ITAL><FNIND NUMBER="2"/>2 the Supreme Court ruled that taking a handwriting sample did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure of a person and hence did not violate Fourth Amendment rights.</P>
<P>As opposed to nonrequested specimens (written without the thought that they may someday be used in a police investigation), requested writing samples may be consciously altered by the writer. However, the investigator can take certain steps to minimize attempts at deception. The requirement of several pages of writing normally provides enough material that is free of attempts at deliberate disguise or nervousness for a valid comparison. In addition, the writing of dictation yields exemplars that best represent the suspect’s subconscious style and characteristics.</P>
<P>Other steps that can be taken to minimize a conscious writing effort, as well as to ensure conditions approximating those of the questioned writing, can be summarized as follows:
<NL><ITEM><P><INST>1. </INST>The writer should be allowed to write sitting comfortably at a desk or table and without distraction.</P></ITEM>
<ITEM><P><INST>2. </INST>The suspect should not under any conditions be shown the questioned document or be told how to spell certain words or what punctuation to use.</P></ITEM>
<ITEM><P><INST>3. </INST>The suspect should be furnished a pen and paper similar to those used in the questioned document.</P></ITEM>
<ITEM><P><INST>4. </INST>T...
Januszek66