Considerations on the ASTM standards 1789-04 and 1422-05 on the forensic examination of ink

Journal of Forensic Sciences

Volumn 55, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 1304-1310

  Neumann, Cedric ^a   Margot, Pierre ^b  

^a FORENSIC SCIENCE SERVICE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

ASTM standards; forensic science; ink examination; interpretation; quality assurance; standardization

Indexed keywords

EID: 77956299857     PISSN: 00221198     EISSN: 15564029     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01454.x     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Ellen DM. The scientific examination of documents, 2nd edn. London : Taylor & Francis, 1997.
2. Brunelle RL, Reed RW. Forensic examination of ink and paper. Springfield, IL : C.C. Thomas, 1984.
3. Breedlove CH. The analysis of ball-point inks for forensic purposes. J Chem Educ 1989 66 : 170 171.
4. Brunelle RL. Ink analysis. In : Siegel J, Knupfer G, Saukko P, editors. Encyclopedia of forensic sciences. San Diego, CA : Academic Press, 2000 591 597.
5. Neumann C, Mazzella WD. Questioned document. In : Worsfold P, Townshend A, Poole C, editors. Encyclopedia of analytical science. London, Oxford, Boston, New York and San Diego : Academic Press, 2004 465 471.
6. ASTM International. ASTM E444-07 standard guide for scope of work of forensic document examiners. West Conshohocken, PA : ASTM International, 2007.
7. ASTM International. ASTM E1789-04 standard guide for writing ink identification. West Conshohocken, PA : ASTM International, 2004.
8. ASTM International. ASTM E1422-05 standard guide for test methods for forensic writing ink comparison. West Conshohocken, PA : ASTM International, 2005.
9. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vand L Rev 2008 61 : 199 219.
10. Saks MJ. Merlin and Solomon: lessons from the law's formative encounters with forensic identification science. Hastings Law J 1998 49 : 1069 1141.
11. Saks MJ, Koehler JJ. The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science. Science 2005 309 : 892 895.
12. Saks MJ. The legal and scientific evaluation of forensic science (especially fingerprint expert testimony). Seton Hall Law Rev 2003 33 : 1167 1187.
13. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community, National Research Council. Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington, DC : National Academies Press, 2009.
14. Lindley DV. A problem in forensic science. Biometrika 1977 64 : 207 213.
15. Evett IW. A Bayesian approach to the problem of interpreting glass evidence in forensic science casework. J Forensic Sci Soc 1986 26 : 3 18.
16. Robertson B, Vignaux GA. Interpreting evidence: evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Chichester, England : John Wiley and Sons, 1995.
17. Champod C. Identification/individualisation: overview and meaning of ID. In : Siegel J, Knupfer G, Saukko P, editors. Encyclopedia of forensic sciences. San Diego, CA : Academic Press, 2000 1077 1083.
18. Tebbett IR. Chromatographic analysis of inks for forensic science applications. Forensic Sci Rev 1991 3 : 71 82.
19. Zlotnick JA, Smith FP. Chromatographic and electrophoretic approaches in ink analysis [review]. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 1999 733 : 265 272.
20. Neumann C, Margot P. Forensic ink analysis: a review of the techniques. Rev Int Criminol Police Tech 2003 56 : 341 360.
21. Smalldon KW, Moffat AC. Calculation of discriminating power for a series of correlated attributes. J Forensic Sci Soc 1973 13 : 291 295.
22. Kwan QY. Inference of identity of source PhD thesis Berkeley, CA : Department of Forensic Science, University of California, 1977.
23. Weyermann C, Kirsh D, Costa-Vera C, Spengler B. A GC/MS study of the drying of ballpoint pen ink on paper. Forensic Sci Int 2006 168 : 119 127.
24. Brazeau L, Gaudreau M. Ballpoint pen inks: the quantitative analysis of ink solvents on paper by solid-phase microextraction. J Forensic Sci 2007 52 : 209 215.
25. Hamed HR, Safey El-Din NM, El-Laithy SA, Mansour OY, Sabaa MW. Effect of accelerated fading on the stability of inks marked on different types of papers. International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners 1997 3 : 229 236.
26. Andrasko J. HPLC analysis of ballpoint pen inks stored at different light conditions. J Forensic Sci 2001 46 : 21 30.
27. Andrasko J. Changes in composition of ballpoint pen inks on aging in darkness. J Forensic Sci 2002 47 : 324 327.
28. Andrasko J, Kunicki M. Inhomogeneity and aging of ballpoint pen inks inside of pen cartridges. J Forensic Sci 2005 50 : 542 547.
29. Weyermann W, Kirsh D, Costa-Vera D, Spengler B. Photofading of ballpoint dyes studied on paper by LDI and MALDI MS. J Am Soc Mass Spectrom 2006 17 : 297 306.
30. Neumann C, Margot P. New perspectives in the use of ink evidence in forensic science - part I: development of a quality assurance process for forensic ink analysis by HPTLC. Forensic Sci Int 2009 185 : 29 37.
31. Finkelstein MO, Fairley WB. A Bayesian approach to identification evidence. Harv L Rev 1970 83 : 489 517.
32. Neumann C, Margot P. New perspectives in the use of ink evidence in forensic science - Part II: development and testing of mathematical algorithms for the automatic comparison of ink samples analysed by HPTLC. Forensic Sci Int 2009 185 : 38 50.
33. Stead AH, Gill R, Wright T, Gibbs JP, Moffat AC. Standardised thin-layer chromatographic systems for the identification of drugs and poisons. Analyst 1982 107 : 1106 1168.
34. Ambrus A, Fuezesi I, Lantos J, Korsos I, Szathmary M, Hatfaludi T. Application of TLC for confirmation and screening of pesticide residues in fruits, vegetables, and cereal grains: part 2: repeatability and reproducibility of Rf and MDQ values. J Environ Sci Health B 2005 40 : 485 511.
35. Gill R, Law B, Brown C, Moffat AC. A Computer search system for the identification of drugs using a combination of thin-layer chromatographic, gas-liquid chromatographic and ultraviolet spectroscopic data. Analyst 1985 110 : 1059 1065.
36. Mansfield AJ, Wayman JL. Best practices in testing and reporting performance of biometric devices v2.0.1, NPL report CMSC 14/02. Nottinghalm, UK : Center for Mathematics and Scientific Computing, UK National Physical Laboratory, 2002.
37. Neumann C, Champod C, Puch-Solis R, Egli N, Anthonioz A, Bromage-Griffiths A. Computation of likelihood ratios in fingerprint identification for configurations of any number of minutiae. J Forensic Sci 2007 2007 : 54 64.
38. Gonzalez-Rodriguez J, Drygajlo A, Ramos-Castro D, Garcia-Gomar M, Ortega-Garcia J. Bayesian analysis of fingerprint, face and signature evidence with automatic biometrics systems. Forensic Sci Int 2005 155 : 126 140.
39. Gonzalez-Rodriguez J, Drygajlo A, Ramos-Castro D, Garcia-Gomar M, Ortega-Garcia J. Robust estimation, interpretation and assessment of likelihood ratios in forensic speaker recognition. Computer Speech Lang 2006 20 : 331 355.
40. Evett IW, Weir BS. Interpreting DNA evidence. Sunderland, MA : Sinauer, 1998.
41. Roux C, Margot P. An attempt to assess the relevance of textile fibres recovered from car seats. Sci Justice 1997 37 : 225 230.
42. McDermott SD, Willis SM, McCullough JP. The evidential value of paint. Part II: a Bayesian approach. J Forensic Sci 1999 44 : 263 269.
43. Curran JM, Hicks-Champod TN, Buckleton JS. Forensic interpretation of glass evidence. Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press, 2000.
44. Evett IW, Champod C. A probabilistic approach to fingerprint evidence. J Forensic Ident 2001 51 : 101 122.
45. Champod C, Evett IW, Kuchler B. Earmarks as evidence: a critical review. J Forensic Sci 2001 46 : 1275 1284.
46. Champod C, Baldwin D, Taroni F, Buckleton JS. Firearms and tool marks identification: the Bayesian approach. The AFTE J 2003 35 : 307 316.
47. Neumann C. New perspectives in the use of ink evidence in forensic science PhD thesis Lausanne, Switzerland : University of Lausanne, 2008.
48. Neumann C, CAMAG Inc, Champod C. The International Ink Library of the United States Secret Service: a new and efficient way of managing the data, DHSARPA, Contract HSHQDC-06-R-00066, 2006.