Writer identification by professional document examiners

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 42, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 778-786

  Kam, Moshe ^a   Fielding, Gabriel ^a   Conn, Robert ^b  

^a Drexel University   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Document examination; Document examiners; Forensic science; Handwriting analysis; Handwriting tests; Proficiency testing; Questioned documents; Writer identification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DATA ANALYSIS; DOCUMENT EXAMINATION; FORENSIC IDENTIFICATION; FORENSIC SCIENCE; HANDWRITING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RELIABILITY; TASK PERFORMANCE;

EID: 0030963727     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1520/jfs14207j     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Risinger DM, Denbeaux MP, Saks MJ. Exorcism of ignorance as a proxy for rational knowledge: the lessons of handwriting identification 'expertise'. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1989;137:731-787.
2. Kam M, Wetstein J, and Conn R. Proficiency of professional document examiners in writer identification. J Forensic Sci 1994;39:5-14.
3. Galbraith O, Galbraith CS, Galbraith NG. The principle of the "drunkard's search" as a proxy for scientific analysis: the misuse of handwriting test data in a law journal article. Intl J Forensic Doc Exam 1995;1(1):7-17.
4. Beck J. Sources of errors in forensic handwriting evaluation. J Forensic Sci 1995;40(1):78-82.
5. United States of America against Roberta Starzecpyzel and Eileen Starzecpyzel, United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. S1:93 CR.49.
6. United States of America against Kathleen Kresner Jones, United States Federal District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee, Case No. 3:95 CR.24.
7. United States vs. Specialist Jeffery A. Ruth, US Army Court of Criminal Appeals, Case No. 9400093.
8. United States of America; Government of the Virgin Islands vs. Edwin Velasquez, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, Case No. 93-7236.
9. United States of America vs. Ruben Renteria Sr. and Ruben Renteria Jr., United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, Case No. 95-320-JP.
10. United States of America vs. Joseph Pravato and Syed Arrhad Mahmood, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 95 CR 981.
11. United States of America vs. Muhammed Ijaz Chohan, United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 95 CR 876.
12. The People of the State of California vs. Victor Kiet Diep and Thuan Wu, Superior Court of the State of California, San Francisco, Court No. 157436-01/02.
13. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM Standard E 1658: Terminology for Expressing Conclusions of Forensic Document Examiners.
14. Van Trees HL. Detection, estimation, and modulation theory, Part 1. New York: Wiley, 1968.
15. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, New York: Random House, 1987.
16. Siegel S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw Hill, 1956;127-136,184-94.
17. Sachs L. Applied statistics - A Handbook of Techniques. New York: Springer Verlag, 1984.
18. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP. Numerical recipes in C. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992; 623-28.
19. Gibbons JD. Nonparametric methods for quantitative analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.
20. Conover WJ. Practical non-parametric statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1980.
21. Birnbaum ZW, Hall RA. Small sample distributions for multisample statistics of the Smirnov type. Ann Math Stat 1960;31:710-20.