Table 1
The detailed composition of the two groups of forgers A and B.
| Group A 1 architect with a diploma from an artistic school and the architecture Academy with 9 months of experience 1 graphic designer with a professional school degree and 3 years of experience 1 student from an artistic school 1 painter from the Art Academy of Brera and the University of Paris VIII with 35 years of experience 1 criminalist known for his simulation skills 7 students at SCJ (3 at BSc and 4 at MSc level) 3 commercial employees 1 railway leader 1 carpenter 1 student from the hotel school 1 teacher 1 fiscalist 1 student in physiotherapy 1 laboratory assistant | Group B 1 building designer with 4 years of school and 14 years of experience 1 architect with a diploma from a Swiss University and 5 years of experience 1 graphic designer with a professional school degree and 5 years of experience 3 architects with a professional school degree and 2, 6 and 32 years of experience respectively 2 building designer with thirty-two and thirty-nine years of experience 1 graphic designer (the person gave us only this information) 1 student of the third year of the IPS 11 students at SCJ (at MSc) 1 psychologist 1 commercial employee 1 retired 2 teachers 1 student in psychology 1 student in urbanism 1 unemployed 1 chef |
Figure 1
Example of case submitted as proficiency test. Each expert received 8 reference signatures and 4 questioned signatures. The 4 questioned signatures included the best imitations of the three populations of forgers and a reference.
Table 2
| Level 1 The questioned signature was written by the writer of the signature specimen (“very strong support […]”) |
| Level 2 There are indications that the questioned signature was written by the writer of the signature specimen |
| (“moderate support […]”) |
| Level 3 No opinion can be expressed as to whether or not the questioned signature was written by the writer of the signature specimens (“inconclusive opinion”) |
| Level 4 There are indications that the questioned signature was not written by the writer of the signature specimens (“moderate support […]”) |
| Level 5 The questioned signature was not written by the writer of the signature specimens (“very strong support”) |
Figure 2
The 6 selected signatures.
Figure 3
Examples of simulations obtained for signatures B1, B3 and A1.
Table 3
Information about the experts participating in the study.
| Expert 1 | 25 years of experience | 30 cases/year |
| Expert 2 | 9 years of experience | 80 cases/year |
| Expert 3 | 37 years of experience | 20 cases/year |
| Expert 4 | 9 years of experience | 60 cases/year |
| Expert 5 | 1 year of experience | 3 cases/year |
| Expert 6 | 8 years of experience | 30 cases/year |
Table 4
Results of the document examination experts. Numbers refer to Table 2. See Figure 2. Some experts answered by selecting two levels, with one not preferred (the one in brackets).
| Signature A1 | ||
| Simulation from | Conclusions of the expert 5 | Conclusions of the expert 6 |
| Designers | 5 | 4-(5) |
| Forensic Science Students | 4 | 3-(4) |
| General population | 5 | 5 |
| Signature B1 | ||
| Simulation from | Conclusions of the expert 3 | Conclusions of the expert 4 |
| Designers | 4-(5) | 4 |
| Forensic Science Students | 3-(4) | 3 |
| General population | 4-(5) | 3 |
| Signature B3 | ||
| Simulation from | Conclusions of the expert 1 | Conclusions of the expert 2 |
| Designers | 4-(5) | 4 |
| Forensic Science Students | 3-(4) | 4 |
| General population | 4-(5) | 5 |