ASTM E1658-08
(Terminology)Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners (Withdrawn 2017)
Standard Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners (Withdrawn 2017)
SIGNIFICANCE AND USE
Document examiners begin examinations from a point of neutrality. There are an infinite number of gradations of opinion toward an identification or toward an elimination. It is in those cases wherein the opinion is less than definite that careful attention is especially needed in the choice of language used to convey the weight of the evidence.
Common sense dictates that we must limit the terminology we use in expressing our degrees of confidence in the evidence to terms that are readily understandable to those who use our services (including investigators, attorneys, judges, and jury members), as well as to other document examiners. The expressions used to differentiate the gradations of opinions should not be considered as strongly defined “categories”. These expressions should be guidelines without sharply defined boundaries.
When a forensic document examiner chooses to use one of the terms defined below, the listener or reader can assume that this is what the examiner intended the term to mean. To avoid the possibility of misinterpretation of a term where the expert is not present to explain the guidelines in this standard, the appropriate definition(s) could be quoted in or appended to reports.
The examples are given both in the first person and in third person since both methods of reporting are used by document examiners and since both forms meet the main purpose of the standard, i. e., to suggest terminology that is readily understandable. These examples should not be regarded as the only ways to utilize probability statements in reports and testimony. In following any guidelines, the examiner should always bear in mind that sometimes the examination will lead into paths that cannot be anticipated and that no guidelines can cover exactly.
Although the material that follows deals with handwriting, forensic document examiners may apply this terminology to other examinations within the scope of their work, as described in Guide E 444, and it may be use...
SCOPE
1.1 This terminology is intended to assist forensic document examiners in expressing conclusions or opinions based on their examinations.
1.2 The terms in this terminology are based on the report of a committee of the Questioned Document Section of the American Academy of Forensic Science that 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 .
WITHDRAWN RATIONALE
This terminology is intended to assist forensic document examiners in expressing conclusions or opinions based on their examinations.
Formerly under the jurisdiction of Committee E30 on Forensic Sciences, this terminology was withdrawn in January 2017 in accordance with section 10.6.3 of the Regulations Governing ASTM Technical Committees, which requires that standards shall be updated by the end of the eighth year since the last approval date.
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
Designation: E1658 − 08
Standard Terminology for
1
Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1658; 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 (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope should not be considered as strongly defined “categories”.
These expressions should be guidelines without sharply de-
1.1 Thisterminologyisintendedtoassistforensicdocument
fined boundaries.
examiners in expressing conclusions or opinions based on their
examinations. 3.3 When a forensic document examiner chooses to use one
of the terms defined below, the listener or reader can assume
1.2 The terms in this terminology are based on the report of
that this is what the examiner intended the term to mean. To
a committee of the Questioned Document Section of the
avoid the possibility of misinterpretation of a term where the
American Academy of Forensic Science that was adopted as
expert is not present to explain the guidelines in this standard,
the recommended guidelines in reports and testimony by the
the appropriate definition(s) could be quoted in or appended to
Questioned Document Section of the American Academy of
reports.
Forensic Science and the American Board of Forensic Docu-
2
3.4 The examples are given both in the first person and in
ment Examiners.
third person since both methods of reporting are used by
document examiners and since both forms meet the main
2. Referenced Documents
purpose of the standard, that is, to suggest terminology that is
3
2.1 ASTM Standards:
readilyunderstandable.Theseexamplesshouldnotberegarded
E444 Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic Document
as the only ways to utilize probability statements in reports and
Examiners
testimony. In following any guidelines, the examiner should
always bear in mind that sometimes the examination will lead
3. Significance and Use
into paths that cannot be anticipated and that no guidelines can
3.1 Document examiners begin examinations from a point
cover exactly.
of neutrality. There are an infinite number of gradations of
3.5 Although the material that follows deals with
opinion toward an identification or toward an elimination. It is
handwriting, forensic document examiners may apply this
in those cases wherein the opinion is less than definite that
terminology to other examinations within the scope of their
careful attention is especially needed in the choice of language
work, as described in Guide E444, and it may be used by
used to convey the weight of the evidence.
forensic 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. The
bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.
expressions used to differentiate the gradations of opinions
4. Terminology
4.1 Recommended Terms:
1
This terminology is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 on
identification (definite conclusion of identity)—this is the
Forensic Sciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.90 on
highest degree of confidence expressed by document exam-
Executive.
iners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no
Current edition approved Aug. 15, 2008. Published October 2008. Originally
approved in 1995. Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E1658 – 04. DOI:
reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using
10.1520/E1658-08.
the word “fact,” the examiner is certain, based on evidence
2
McAlexander T.V., Beck, J., and Dick, R., “The Standardization of Handwrit-
contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the known
ing OpinionTerminology,” Journal of Forensic Science,Vol 36, No. 2, March 1991,
material actually wrote the writing in question.
pp. 311–319.
3
For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or
Examples—It has been concluded that John Doe wrote the
contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM
questioned material, or it is my opinion [or conclusion] that
Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on
the ASTM website. John Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Har
...
Questions, Comments and Discussion
Ask us and Technical Secretary will try to provide an answer. You can facilitate discussion about the standard in here.