ASTM E1658-96e1
(Terminology)Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners
Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners
SCOPE
1.1 This terminology is intended to assist forensic document examiners in expressing conclusions based on their examination.
General Information
Relations
Standards Content (Sample)
NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
e1
Designation: E 1658 – 96
Standard Terminology for
Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E 1658; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 3.3 When a forensic document examiner chooses to use one
of the terms defined below, the listener or reader can assume
1.1 This terminology is intended to assist forensic document
that this is what the examiner intended the term to mean. To
examiners in expressing conclusions based on their examina-
avoid the possibility of misinterpretation of a term where the
tion.
expert is not present to explain the guidelines in this standard,
1.2 This terminology is based on the report of a committee
the appropriate definition(s) could be quoted in or appended to
of the Questioned Document Section of the American Acad-
reports.
emy of Forensic Science which was adopted as the recom-
3.4 The examples are given both in the first person and in
mended guidelines in reports and testimony by the Questioned
third person since both methods of reporting are used by
Document Section of the American Academy of Forensic
document examiners and since both forms meet the main
Science and the American Board of Forensic Document
2,3
purpose of the standard, i. e., to suggest terminology that is
Examiners .
readily understandable. These examples should not be regarded
2. Referenced Documents
as the only ways to utilize probability statements in reports and
testimony. In following any guidelines, the examiner should
2.1 ASTM Standards:
always bear in mind that sometimes the examination will lead
E 444 Guide for Description of Work of Forensic Document
into paths that cannot be anticipated and that no guidelines can
Examiners
cover exactly.
3. Significance and Use
3.5 Although the material that follows deals with handwrit-
ing, forensic document examiners may apply this terminology
3.1 Document examiners should always begin their hand-
to other examinations within the scope of their work, as
writing examinations from a point of complete neutrality.
described in Guide E 444, and it may be used by forensic
There are an infinite number of gradations of opinion toward an
examiners in other areas, as appropriate.
identification or toward an elimination. It is in those cases
3.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
wherein the opinion is less than definite that careful attention is
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
especially needed in the choice of language used to convey the
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
weight of the evidence.
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
3.2 Common sense dictates that we must limit the terminol-
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
ogy we use in expressing our degrees of confidence in the
evidence to terms that are readily understandable to those who
4. Terminology
use our services (including investigators, attorneys, judges, and
4.1 Recommended Terms:
jury members), as well as to other document examiners. We
must be careful that the expressions we use in separating the
identification (definite conclusion of identity)—this is the
gradations of opinions do not become strongly defined “cat-
highest degree of confidence expressed by document exam-
egories” that will always be used as a matter of convenience;
iners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no
instead, these expressions should be guidelines without sharply
reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using
defined boundaries.
the word “fact,” the examiner is certain, based on evidence
contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the known
This terminology is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E-30 on material actually wrote the writing in question.
Forensic Sciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.02 on
Examples—It has been concluded that John Doe wrote the
Questioned Documents.
questioned material, or it is my opinion [or conclusion] that
Current edition approved March 10, 1996. Published March 1997. Originally
John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned
published as E 1658 – 95. Last previous edition E 1658 – 95.
McAlexander, T. V., Beck, J., and Dick, R., “The Standardization of Handwrit- material.
ing Opinion Terminology,” Journal of Forensic Science, Vol. 36. No. 2, March 1991,
strong probability (highly probable, very probable)—the
pp. 311–319.
evidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature or
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Vol 14.02.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
E 1658
quality is missing so that an identification is not in order; found indications that the John Doe of the known material
however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned did not write the questioned material but the evidence is far
and known writings were written by the same individual. from conclusive.
Examples—There is strong probability that the John Doe of the See Discussion after indications.
known material wrote the questioned material, or it is my probably did not—the evidence points rather strongly against
opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John Doe the questioned and known writings having been written by
of the known material very probably wrote the questioned the same individual, but, as in the probable range above, the
material. evidence is not quite up to the “virtually certain” range.
Examples—It has been concluded that the John Doe of the
DISCUSSION—Some examiners doubt the desirability of differentiating
known material probably did not write the questioned
between strong probability and probable, and certainly they may
material, or it is my opinion (or conclusion or determination)
eliminate this terminology. But those examiners who are trying to
encompass the entire “gray scale” of degrees of confidence may wish that the John Doe of the known material probably did not
to use this or a similar term.
write the questioned material.
probable—the evidence contained in the handwriting points DISCUSSION—Some examiners prefer to state this opinion: “It is
unlikely that the John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned
rather strongly toward the questioned and known writings
material.” There is no strong objection to this, as “unlikely” is merely
having been written by the same individual; however, it falls
the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of “improbable”.
short of the“ virtually certain” degree of confidence.
Examples—It has been concluded that the John Doe of the
strong probability did not—this carries the same weight as
known material probably wrote the questioned material, or it
strong probability on the identification side of the scale; that
is my opinion (or conclusion or determination) that the John
is, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and
Doe of the known material probably wrote the questioned
known writings were not written by the same individual.
material.
Examples—There is strong probability that the John Doe of the
indications (evidence to suggest)—a body of writing has few
known material did not write the questioned material, or in
features which are of significance for handwriting compari-
my opinion (or conclusion or determination) it is highly
son purposes, but those features are in agreement with
probable that the John Doe of the known material did not
another body of writing.
write the questioned material.
Examples—There is evidence
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.