ASTM_E_1658_-_08.pdf

Designation:E165808Standard Terminology forExpressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners1This standard is issued under the fixed designation E1658;the number immediately following the designation indicates the year oforiginal adoption or,in the case of revision,the year of last revision.A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval.Asuperscript epsilon()indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.1.Scope1.1 This terminology is intended to assist forensic documentexaminers in expressing conclusions or opinions based on theirexaminations.1.2 The terms in this terminology are based on the report ofa committee of the Questioned Document Section of theAmerican Academy of Forensic Science that was adopted asthe recommended guidelines in reports and testimony by theQuestioned Document Section of the American Academy ofForensic Science and the American Board of Forensic Docu-ment Examiners.22.Referenced Documents2.1 ASTM Standards:3E444 Guide for Scope of Work of Forensic DocumentExaminers3.Significance and Use3.1 Document examiners begin examinations from a pointof neutrality.There are an infinite number of gradations ofopinion toward an identification or toward an elimination.It isin those cases wherein the opinion is less than definite thatcareful attention is especially needed in the choice of languageused to convey the weight of the evidence.3.2 Common sense dictates that we must limit the terminol-ogy we use in expressing our degrees of confidence in theevidence to terms that are readily understandable to those whouse our services(including investigators,attorneys,judges,andjury members),as well as to other document examiners.Theexpressions used to differentiate the gradations of opinionsshould not be considered as strongly defined“categories”.These expressions should be guidelines without sharply de-fined boundaries.3.3 When a forensic document examiner chooses to use oneof the terms defined below,the listener or reader can assumethat this is what the examiner intended the term to mean.Toavoid the possibility of misinterpretation of a term where theexpert is not present to explain the guidelines in this standard,the appropriate definition(s)could be quoted in or appended toreports.3.4 The examples are given both in the first person and inthird person since both methods of reporting are used bydocument examiners and since both forms meet the mainpurpose of the standard,that is,to suggest terminology that isreadily understandable.These examples should not be regardedas the only ways to utilize probability statements in reports andtestimony.In following any guidelines,the examiner shouldalways bear in mind that sometimes the examination will leadinto paths that cannot be anticipated and that no guidelines cancover exactly.3.5 Although the material that follows deals with handwrit-ing,forensic document examiners may apply this terminologyto other examinations within the scope of their work,asdescribed in Guide E444,and it may be used by forensicexaminers in other areas,as appropriate.3.6 This standard does not purport to address all of thesafety concerns,if any,associated with its use.It is theresponsibility of the user of this standard to establish appro-priate safety and health practices and determine the applica-bility of regulatory limitations prior to use.4.Terminology4.1 Recommended Terms:identification(definite conclusion of identity)this is thehighest degree of confidence expressed by document exam-iners in handwriting comparisons.The examiner has noreservations whatever,and although prohibited from usingthe word“fact,”the examiner is certain,based on evidencecontained in the handwriting,that the writer of the knownmaterial actually wrote the writing in question.ExamplesIt has been concluded that John Doe wrote thequestioned material,or it is my opinion or conclusion thatJohn Doe of the known material wrote the questioned material.1This terminology is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E30 onForensic Sciences and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E30.90 onExecutive.Current edition approved Aug.15,2008.Published October 2008.Originallyapproved in 1995.Last previous edition approved in 2004 as E1658 04.DOI:10.1520/E1658-08.2McAlexander T.V.,Beck,J.,and Dick,R.,“The Standardization of Handwrit-ing Opinion Terminology,”Journal of Forensic Science,Vol 36,No.2,March 1991,pp.311319.3For referenced ASTM standards,visit the ASTM website,www.astm.org,orcontact ASTM Customer Service at serviceastm.org.For Annual Book of ASTMStandards volume information,refer to the standards Document Summary page onthe ASTM website.Copyright ASTM International,100 Barr Harbor Drive,PO Box C700,West Conshohocken,PA 19428-2959.United States1 strong probability(highly probable,very probable)theevidence is very persuasive,yet some critical feature orquality is missing so that an identification is not in order;however,the examiner is virtually certain that the questionedan