ASTM E1658-04

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.
1.2 This terminology is based on the report of a committee of the Questioned Document Section of the American Academy of Forensic Science which was adopted as the recommended guidelines in reports and testimony by the Questioned Document Section of the American Academy of Forensic Science and the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners.

General Information

• Status: Historical
• Publication Date: 30-Sep-2004
• ICS: 01.040.11 - Health care technology (Vocabularies)
• Technical Committee: E30 - Forensic Sciences

Relations

• Replaces: ASTM E1658-96e1 - Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners
• Effective Date: 01-Oct-2004
• Replaced By: ASTM E1658-08 - Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners (Withdrawn 2017)
• Effective Date: 15-Aug-2008

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NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.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
Designation:E1658–04
Standard Terminology for
1
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 gradations of opinions do not become strongly defined “cat-
egories” that will always be used as a matter of convenience;
1.1 Thisterminologyisintendedtoassistforensicdocument
instead, these expressions should be guidelines without sharply
examiners in expressing conclusions based on their examina-
defined boundaries.
tion.
3.3 When a forensic document examiner chooses to use one
1.2 This terminology is based on the report of a committee
of the terms defined below, the listener or reader can assume
of the Questioned Document Section of the American Acad-
that this is what the examiner intended the term to mean. To
emy of Forensic Science which was adopted as the recom-
avoid the possibility of misinterpretation of a term where the
mended guidelines in reports and testimony by the Questioned
expert is not present to explain the guidelines in this standard,
Document Section of the American Academy of Forensic
the appropriate definition(s) could be quoted in or appended to
Science and the American Board of Forensic Document
2,3
reports.
Examiners .
3.4 The examples are given both in the first person and in
2. Referenced Documents
third person since both methods of reporting are used by
2
document examiners and since both forms meet the main
2.1 ASTM Standards:
purpose of the standard, i. e., to suggest terminology that is
E 444 GuideforDescriptionofWorkofForensicDocument
readilyunderstandable.Theseexamplesshouldnotberegarded
Examiners
as the only ways to utilize probability statements in reports and
3. Significance and Use
testimony. In following any guidelines, the examiner should
always bear in mind that sometimes the examination will lead
3.1 Document examiners begin their handwriting examina-
into paths that cannot be anticipated and that no guidelines can
tions from a point of complete neutrality. There are an infinite
cover exactly.
number of gradations of opinion toward an identification or
3.5 Although the material that follows deals with handwrit-
toward an elimination. It is in those cases wherein the opinion
ing, forensic document examiners may apply this terminology
islessthandefinitethatcarefulattentionisespeciallyneededin
to other examinations within the scope of their work, as
the choice of language used to convey the weight of the
described in Guide E 444, and it may be used by forensic
evidence.
examiners in other areas, as appropriate.
3.2 Common sense dictates that we must limit the terminol-
3.6 This standard does not purport to address all of the
ogy we use in expressing our degrees of confidence in the
safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the
evidence to terms that are readily understandable to those who
responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-
useourservices(includinginvestigators,attorneys,judges,and
priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-
jury members), as well as to other document examiners. We
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
must be careful that the expressions we use in separating the
4. Terminology
1
This terminology is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 on
4.1 Recommended Terms:
Forensic Sciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.02 on
Questioned Documents.
identification (definite conclusion of identity)—this is the
Current edition approved Oct. 1, 2004. Published November 2004. Originally
highest degree of confidence expressed by document exam-
approved in 1995. Last previous edition approved in 1996 as E 1658 – 96.
2
iners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no
McAlexander, T. V., Beck, J., and Dick, R., “The Standardization of Handwrit-
ingOpinionTerminology,” Journal of Forensic Science,Vol.36.No.2,March1991,
reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using
pp. 311–319.
the word “fact,” the examiner is certain, based on evidence
3
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the known
contact ASTM Customer Service at [e-mail]. For Annual Book of ASTM
material actually wrote the writing in question.
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States.
1

---------------------- Page: 1 ---------------
...