Typical Mistakes in Forensic Handwriting Analysis of Copies of Handwritten Entries
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-1-97-105
Abstract
The growing volume of forensic handwriting examinations of handwritten requisites copies entails the need to determine the range of the most typical mistakes made by experts in examination of these objects. The article gives examples of the most common mistakes in expert reports, the origin of some is analyzed. The system of internal and external forms of peer review of the ENFSI (The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes) experts’ conclusions is reviewed. To avoid most of mistakes described in the article the author proposes to follow relevant methodological references, to pay close attention to the quality of the examined object, to adhere strictly to all intermediate stages of examination. Also, to use internal and external peer review of conclusions as a form of control more effectively. The information contained in the article can be of practical interest when both reviewing conclusions in state expert institutions and preparing a value judgement regarding an expert/specialist conclusion.
About the Author
G. V. Cherepenko
Non-Proft Organization “Forensic expert”;
Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cherepen’ko Georgii Vasil’evich – postgraduate student of Institute of Forensic Science of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL); handwriting examiner of Center for Forensic Expertise and Research
Moscow 115191, Moscow 125993
References
1. Rossinskaya E.R. (ed.) Forensic science: typical mistakes. Moscow: Prospekt, 2018. 544 p. (In Russ.)
2. Ismatova T.I., Tokareva E.V., Simonova S.V. The review of typical drawbacks of handwriting examination reports of experts on probation. Forensic Examination. 2014. No. 1 (37). P. 101– 112. (In Russ.)
3. Orlova V.F. (ed.). Forensic handwriting examination. General part. Theoretical and methodological framework. 2nd ed. Moscow: Nauka, 2006. 544 p. (In Russ.)
4. Gal’tsev Yu.V., Smirnova S.A., Ryabinin G.A., Sibirev V.V., Garmanov V.V., Gal’tsev A.Yu. Forensic expert’s terminological dictionary and reference book. St. Petersburg: Petropolis, 2007. 392 p. (In Russ.)
5. Bondarenko P.V. Research of push characteristics of non-genuine signatures. Methodological recommendations. Saratov: MVD Rossii, 2007. 52 p. (In Russ.)
6. Sokolov S.V., Kuranova E.A., Rozankova E.V. Forensic examination of facsimile copies of handwriting objects. Information letter. Moscow: EKTs MVD Rossii, 2000. 8 p. (In Russ.)
7. Shvedova N.N. Polylithism of a document as grounds for expanding the limits of the expert’s competence. Forensic Examination. 2013. No. 2 (34). P. 21–28. (In Russ.)
8. Lyapichev V.E., Dosova A.V. Specific features of the expert detection of alterations in the original content of texts in documents made using computer technologies and copiers. Forensic Examination. 2012. No. 4 (32). P. 51–57. (In Russ.)
9. Orlova V.F. Forensic handwriting diagnostics: study guide for undergraduate students. Moscow: YuNITI-DANA: Zakon i pravo, 2006. 160 p. (In Russ.)
10. Efremova M.V., Orlova V.F., Starosel’skaya A.D. Conduct of forensic handwriting examination on electrographic copies. (information letter). Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2006. No. 1 (1). P. 157–165. (In Russ.)
11. Masson J.F. Scanned images: how well do they depict the subtle features in handwriting? Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. 2012. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 41–47.
12. Govorkova E.Yu. Contemporary approaches to investigation of handwriting objects copies. Materials of All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference “Natural science research methods in the theory and practice of conducting forensic economic and speech examinations” (Nizhny Novgorod, April 20-21, 2016) / Tsyganov V.I., Tikhonova S.S., Yumatov V.A. (eds.). N. Novgorod: Nizhegorodskii gos. un-t imeni N.I. Lobachevskogo, 2017. P. 22–33. (In Russ.)
13. Podvolotskii I.N. Forensic handwriting examination. Study guide. Moscow: Norma: INFRA-M, 2017. 272 p. (In Russ.)
14. Koval’ov K.M. On the issue of studying copies of documents when conducting handwriting and technical examination of documents. Forensics and forensic science. 2014. No. 59. P. 228–240. (In Ukrainian)
15. Komissarov A.Yu., Zhuravleva T.N., Makarova L.V. Collection of fragments of forensic handwriting expert conclusions. Study guide. Moscow: EKTs MVD RF. 1997. 34 p. (In Russ.)
16. Rossinskaya E.R., Galyashina E.I. (eds.). Forensic expertology: history and present days (scientific school, expert practice, competence approach). Monograph. Moscow: Prospekt, 2017. 272 p. (In Russ.)
17. Belkin R.S. Course of forensic science. Vol. 2. 3rd ed. Moscow: Yuniti, 2001. 313 p. (In Russ.)
18. Miklyaeva O.V. The 27th meeting of the Federal Interdepartmental coordination and methodology council on forensic science and forensic examinations was held on 20 January, 2012. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2012. No. 3 (27). P. 74–75. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Cherepenko G.V. Typical Mistakes in Forensic Handwriting Analysis of Copies of Handwritten Entries. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2019;14(1):97-105. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-1-97-105
Views:
2155
Email this article 