Exploring the significance of pen lifts as predictors of signature simulation behaviour
References
- A. S. Osborn,
Questioned Document Problems . Boyd Printing Company, New York, (1946) 338. - W.R. Harrison,
Forgery Detection: A Practical Guide . Sweet and Maxwell, London, (1964) 115. - W.R. Harrison,
Suspect Documents and Their Scientific Examination . Sweet and Maxwell, London, (1966) 324. - O. Hilton,
Scientific Examination of Questioned Documents . Revised Edition, CRC Press, (1982) 185. - D. Ellen,
The Scientific Examination of Documents: Methods and Techniques . Ellis Horwood Limited, (1989) 41-42. - R.A. Huber and A.M. Headrick,
Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals . CRC Press, (1999) 289. - D. Black, B. Found and D. Rogers, The frequency of the occurrence of handwriting performance features used to predict whether questioned signatures are simulated, Journal of Forensic Document Examination. 15 (2003) 17-28.
- T. W. Vastrick,
Forensic Document Examination Techniques . The IIA Research Foundation, Florida, U.S.A, (2004) 24. - J. F. Masson, An evaluation of simulated and traced signatures and consideration of the potential for determination of the writers identity. Presented at the 48th Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee (1996).
- J. Nickell,
Detecting Forgery: Forensic Investigation of Documents . University Press of Kentucky: Lexington, KY, (1996). - A. A. Alkahtani and A. W. G. Platt, A statistical study of the relative difficulty of freehand simulation of form, proportion, and line quality in Arabic signatures, Science and Justice. 50 (2010) 72-76.
- D. Risinger, M. Denbeaux, M. Saks, Exorcism of ignorance as a proxy for rational knowledge: the lessons of handwriting identification ‘expertise’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 731(1989) 1-41.
- D. Risinger, M. Saks, Science and nonscience in the courts: Daubert meets handwriting identification expertise. Iowa Law Review. 47(1996) 21-74.
- USA court ruling, Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. V. Carmichael. (1999). 526 U.S. 137.
- C. Champod.
Identification/Individualization— Overview and Meaning of ID , In: Encyclopaedia of Forensic Science. Elsevier Academic Press, Burlington, MA. (2000) 1077-1084. - M. Saks, The aftermath of Daubert: an evolving jurisprudence of expert evidence, Jurimetrics Journal. 40 (2000) 229-241.
- V. Phillips, M. Saks, J. Peterson, Signal detection theory and decision-making in forensic science, Journal of Forensic Science. 46 (2001) 294-308.
- USA court ruling, U.S. v. Hidalgo. (2002)229 F. Supp. 2d 961, 967.
- J. Sita, B. Found, D. Rogers, Forensic handwriting examiners expertise for signature comparison, Journal of Forensic Science. 47 (2002) 1117-1124.
- USA court ruling, U.S v. Patrick Leroy Crisp. (2003)324 F.Supp. 3d 261.
- D.M. Risinger, M.J. Saks, A house with no foundation, Issues in Science and Technology. 20 (1) (2003) 35-39.
- M.J. Saks, Commentary on “Individuality of Handwriting”, Journal of Forensic Science. 48(4) (2003) 916-920.
- M. Saks and J. Koehler, The coming paradigm shift in forensic identification science, Science. 309 (2005) 892-895.
- M.J. Saks and J.J. Koehler, The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence, Vanderbilt Law Review. 61(1) (2008) 199–219.
- M. Saks, Forensic Identification: From a faithbased “Science” to a scientific science, Forensic Science International. 201 (2010) 14-17.
- J. J. Koehler and M.J. Saks, Individualization claims in forensic science: still unwarranted, Brooklyn Law Review. 75 (2010) 1187-1208.
- M. Page, J. Taylor, M. Blenkin, Uniqueness in the forensic identification sciences-Fact or fiction? Forensic Science International. 206 (2011) 12-18.
- R. D. Stoel, I.E, Dror, L. S. Miller, Bias among forensic document examiners: still a need for procedural changes, Australian Journal of Forensic Science. 46 (2014) 91-97.
- United States of America, Federal Rules of Evidence. (2012). Rule 702.
- USA court ruling, Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1993). 509 U.S. 579.
- National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community. (2009).
Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward . The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. (2009) - B. Found, D. Rogers, V. Rowe and D. Dick, Statistical modelling of experts’ perceptions of the ease of signature simulation, Journal of Forensic Document Examination. 11 (1998) 73-100.
- L. C. Alewijnse, C. E. van den Heuvel and R. Stoel, Analysis of Signature Complexity, Journal of Forensic Document Examination. 21 (2011) 3749.
- T. Dewhurst, B. Found and D. Rogers, The relationship between quantitatively modelled signature complexity levels and forensic document examiners’ qualitative opinions on casework, Journal of Forensic Document Examination. 18 (2007) 21-40.
- K. Franke,
Analysis of authentic signatures and forgeries . In: Geradts Z, Franke K, Veenman C, Eds, Computational Forensics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.5718 (2009)150–64. - L. Mohammed, B. Found, and D. Rogers, frequency of signature styles in San Diego county, Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. 11 (2008) 9-13.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.69525/jasqde.218 | Journal eISSN: 1524-7287
Language: English
Page range: 3 - 16
Published on: Dec 1, 2015
Published by: American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
© 2015 Tahnee N. Dewhurst, Kaye N. Ballantyne, Bryan Found, published by American Society of Questioned Document Examiners
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.