Scripture comparison

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comparative writing is a discipline of forensic science and forensic technology. It is used to identify the author of a handwriting in question. By comparison of scripts z. B. Forged signatures or forged wills can be proven. The author identification of anonymous letters also belongs to the field of comparative writing.

Fluorescence examinations: left traces of traces, right emigration of constituents of the writing material, each with illumination spectral range and sensor wavelength in  nm

Term and synonyms

The term "comparison of handwriting" is mostly used as a synonymous term for "forensic comparison of handwriting". Since manuscripts are not only compared in the field of "comparative writing", the term "forensic handwriting examination" has also become established. "Font Expertise" is also a synonymous term that means the examination of handwriting by script experts. In court jargon, one usually speaks of a “written expert opinion” or a “forensic written report”. Similar terms are also "writing examination", "handwriting examination", "writing analysis", "handwriting analysis", whereby there are overlaps with other areas.

Method of forensic handwriting examination

The forensic handwriting examination checks the authenticity of handwritten documents. A written comparative examination is commissioned if the authenticity of a signature or a will is in doubt. Clients are judges, lawyers, public prosecutors or companies as well as private persons.

A comparison of scripts is also used to check whether an anonymous letter with insulting content or a ransom note comes from an accused or a defendant. In this case, a forensic written report serves to prove a criminal offense .

The test material must be obtained before a written comparative examination. With regard to the research material, a distinction is made between the scripts in question, which are generally called X, and the comparative scripts, which are usually called V. The X fonts to be checked must generally be available in the original for a font comparison. In addition, extensive comparative material V is required. Most of the comparative script samples V should also be available in the original for the investigation. In addition, the comparison material V can also contain some photocopies or copies. The client will later receive the original fonts X and V back undamaged. There are lists of sources of research material.

The forensic handwriting examination has a specific method that becomes visible in the structure of an expert opinion. Expert opinions should be methodically structured in such a way that the aspects "order", "method of investigation", "the test material", "material criticism", "findings of the physical-technical examination", "findings of the comparative written examination", "assessment of findings" and "Result of the investigation" are dealt with.

In the written expert opinion for a court, it makes sense to include the decision on evidence in the wording of the order: Example: “ Evidence is to be collected about the claimant's claim that the defendant signed the contract at issue . It should be examined whether the signature X in question comes from the name owner or is a forgery . "

Connection facts can be important in the assessment. Connecting facts are statements by those involved as to the circumstances under which a questionable writing performance X should have arisen. Diseases of a testator in the case of wills or special developmental conditions such as B. Influence of alcohol.

A clear description and identification of the test material is necessary. The written material is listed in an expert opinion so that the material on which the investigation is based can be clearly identified. The time of creation and the question of whether a document is available in the original are taken into account. It makes sense to make photocopies of all fonts X and V as attachments to an expert opinion. This gives both the expert and the recipient of the report a complete overview of the examined material. In addition, the relevant document is quickly at hand even at a court hearing.

Expert reports must be understandable for the layperson and verifiable for the specialist. Therefore, an expert opinion must also contain photos or illustrations with the findings relevant to evidence in an appropriate enlargement.

After the examination material has been listed, a material review is carried out. The material review examines how suitable the test material is for carrying out the investigation. A number of aspects are dealt with: Are the originals of font X to be checked and sufficient comparative fonts V available? Is the scope of the comparative documents V sufficient? Are there reasonable doubts about the authenticity of some of the comparative fonts V? Did the manuscripts X and V originate in a satisfactory temporal proximity? Are the fonts X and V comparable in terms of material technology? If the test material shows deficiencies, this can affect the result of an investigation.

Physico-technical investigation

In the forensic handwriting examination, a non-destructive physical-technical examination is carried out first. It is checked whether any traces can be found that indicate a forgery or a falsification of the document X to be checked.

The physical-technical examination begins with an inspection with the naked eye and without any special aids. Here attention is paid to any abnormalities of the writer, the writing implement and the writing material. It can e.g. B. line crossings between a handwritten signature and a typewritten text located above it, which can be used for a relative age determination .

Specific devices are then used in the physical-technical investigation:

  • Through examinations in the stereo microscope with incident light, transmitted light and grazing light with different filters and different magnifications, traces of traces as well as subtleties in the writing characteristics can be observed.
  • The method of electrostatic surface testing is used to make traces of writing visible to the naked eye, which could have been pushed through from an overlying sheet of paper with the handwriting X on it.

The expert for handwriting comparison uses physical-technical investigation procedures primarily to prove copy forgeries or falsifications of documents and to determine the context in which a questionable writing performance X arose. Finally, through physical-technical processes, it is also possible to observe subtleties, which are taken into account in the subsequent comparison of findings.

Comparative written findings

In the comparison of the findings, a questionable font X is compared with a series of comparison fonts V by a scribe. For this purpose, writing characteristics are collected and observable findings are recorded.

It makes sense to deal with the basic graphic dimensions of the line quality, the printing, the flow of movement, the movement control and shaping, the direction of movement, the vertical and horizontal extent, the vertical and horizontal surface structure and the basic dimension of the other features when making comparative written findings.

These basic dimensions contain general and special characteristics. The measurement of these font characteristics takes place on different scale levels . There are ranking scales for assessing the general characteristics. The special font characteristics are determined by indicative definitions, for which a nominal scale is often the appropriate scale level.

In the case of the comparison of the findings, the fonts X and V are examined completely and systematically in all basic graphic dimensions. The comparison of writing must not only take into account individual matches or differences, since writing a complex behavior pattern and a correct evaluation of findings is therefore only possible on the basis of a complete evaluation of the findings.

The comparative test begins with the collection of the graphical findings of the handwriting X in question. Then the question is asked whether these features of the handwriting X are within or outside the range of variation of the comparative fonts V. If a feature of the handwriting X lies within the range of variation of the comparative fonts V, this is a match. If, on the other hand, no equivalent in V can be found for a feature of X, then this is a divergence.

Even laypeople sometimes compare individual documents and find similarities or differences. Therefore, the basic principle of comparing scriptures is generally easy to understand even for laypeople.

The scientific comparison of writing differs from an amateur comparison of writing through the knowledge and the measurement of writing characteristics as well as through the systematic method, which provides for an evaluation of the findings after the assessment.

Evaluation of findings

The findings are assessed after the findings are made. When evaluating the findings, it is asked how a questionable writing performance X could have arisen. To this end, hypotheses are formed. Hypotheses are possibilities in which way the handwriting X could have originated.

Hypotheses are tools for evaluating findings. The formulated hypotheses must include all possible ways in which the writing performance X can arise. The findings are assessed under the alternative hypotheses.

The evaluation of the findings is carried out using a defined set of evaluation rules. It takes into account connecting facts, preconditions and rules of experience. The evaluation of the findings is based on the comparison of written findings as well as on the results of the physical-technical examination. When evaluating the findings, the likelihood of their occurrence and their explainability under the various hypotheses of the question and the conditions of development are examined.

In addition to other arguments, the criterion of the complexity of the writing performance to be examined and the difficulty in producing a writing performance X to be tested play a role in the evaluation of the findings . If there is little difficulty in producing a writing performance X, an examination cannot arrive at a result with the highest degree of probability even if all the features of the compared fonts X and V match.

result of the investigation

The result of a comparative written examination is formulated as a probability statement. A numerical degree of probability is obtained by comparing hypotheses. It contains the conclusions of all hypotheses and weighs the probability of all hypotheses against each other. A numerical degree of probability is intended to illustrate the weighting of the alternative hypotheses by relating the ratio of the hypotheses to 100%.

Scientific basics

The work of a handwriting expert is always associated with great responsibility. It is often about existential questions. There can be a lot of money in civil proceedings ; foreclosure may be initiated or suspended. In the event of a forgery of a signature or a forgery of a will - following civil proceedings - criminal proceedings can be expected. Witnesses can because of sworn or unsworn be sentenced false statement when such. B. want to have seen that someone has signed a signature that turns out to be a forgery. Forensic written reports are public. In civil proceedings, the parties involved have the opportunity to comment on an expert opinion . Since an expert opinion is usually advantageous for one party and unfavorable for the other party, every expert opinion is viewed critically. An oral hearing of the expert can be requested. Finally, the expert is liable for his report. Due to the high level of responsibility, it is imperative that forensic written reports are based on observable findings and empirical methods.

From a forensic point of view, a handwritten document is first and foremost a trace that is examined using forensic techniques. As with other types of traces - e.g. B. fingerprints, saliva, traces of blood - in forensic practice, also for manuscripts, the task of looking for and securing evidence is the first step. Pfefferli gives instructions for securing documents, for house searches, for the collection of ad hoc written samples; These are measures that can be important in the case of criminal offenses of fraud and forgery of documents or in the case of extortion and anonymous letters.

The physical and technical examination of manuscripts is based on empirical principles.

In addition to physical-technical processes, psychological methods are also relevant in comparing scriptures. In the forensic handwriting examination, there are no interpretations of handwriting features. Rather, only observable matches or differences in the font features are registered.

In the forensic handwriting examination, however, an evaluation of the findings is required after the findings have been made. This should be done according to the most exact scientific methods possible. An empirical writing psychology is necessary for this.

Job profile of writing experts

Writing experts prepare forensic written reports . An expert opinion is evidence in court.

Writing experts are assigned to the professional profile of experts. Experts are particularly needed in court proceedings in order to be able to clarify matters. There are experts for a wide variety of specialist areas - think z. B. to motor vehicle experts and building experts, to experts for business administration or IT, to valuation experts for land or art, antiques, jewels.

There is an expert right, about which Bayerlein gives an overview. In particular, the magazine "The Expert - Specialized Journal for Experts, Chambers, Courts and Authorities" published by the BVS (Federal Association of Publicly Appointed, Sworn and Qualified Experts) provides information on current developments in jurisdiction . There are expert duties and experts are responsible for their work.

For civil proceedings, the comparison of texts is regulated in §§ 441, 442 ZPO. Suitable written material must be submitted by the parties involved for a forensic written report. The court decides on the result of a written comparison in free assessment of evidence (Bayerlein §15, 117, 118).

In criminal proceedings, the comparison of texts according to §93 StPO belongs to the examinations of persons, because personal means of expression are examined here. Written samples can be confiscated according to §94 StPO (Bayerlein §15, 158).

Writing experts work for authorities on the one hand - such as the state criminal police offices, the Federal Criminal Police Office and the customs criminal institute. On the other hand, there are freelance writing experts who mainly work as publicly appointed and sworn experts.

Training for writing experts

In addition to the training at the Federal Criminal Police Office , in which only official experts can participate, there is the institute for written and document examination in the university area, which is affiliated with the University of Mannheim and mainly (but not only) trains psychology students to become written experts.

history

This article or paragraph presents the situation in Germany . Help us to describe the situation in other countries.

In the German history of scientific comparative writing, Heinrich Pfanne (1923–1990) must first be referred to. In 1954 he worked out the essential fundamentals of font expertise; he has z. B. defined new font features with the structure properties. In addition, in 1971 Pfanne carried out extensive empirical studies on handwriting adjustment.

In his book, published in 1982, the Mannheim professor Lothar Michel (1929–1996) gives an introduction to the fundamentals, methods and practice of forensic comparisons. It deals with the work of Pfanne. At the same time, with the basic graphic components, he is developing a new method of comparative writing, based on empirical psychological and graphometric studies. In his book there is also an overview of research work on changing fonts under special conditions of creation. Michel had originally studied with the Freiburg professor Robert Heiss, in whose area graphometry and an empirical psychology of writing developed.

Lothar Michel has also made a name for himself through his commitment to the development of the GFS ( Society for Forensic Writing Examination ), the organization of conferences at the University of Mannheim and the establishment of the “Mannheimer Hefte für Schriftvergleichung”. His colleagues Conrad and Stier thanked him in 1989 with the publication of the commemorative publication “Basics, Methods and Results of Forensic Written Examination”, which contained important work on comparative writing and legal aspects by Geerds, Rieß, Kroon van der Kooij, Bleutge, Pfefferli, Tollkamp -Schierjott, Fackler, Kuckuck, Philipp, Baier, Bullinger-Baier, Conrad, Bekedorf, Hecker, Halder-Sinn, Wildt and Hoffmann contains.

In 1983 Kai Nissen's “Theory of Appraisal” was published, in which the mathematical structure of the written appraisal was described for the first time. The theoretical model ( Bayes' theorem ) derived from probability theory is applicable to all empirical subject areas. A priori probabilities of the hypotheses of the question, findings, finding probabilities for given hypotheses and the a posteriori probabilities, which are to be equated with the expert's conclusion, must be distinguished. As a normative model, it is a direct instruction for the assessment and especially for the evaluation of the findings. It is now generally considered in forensic science.

The graduate psychologist and former chief scientific director at the Federal Criminal Police Office, Manfred Hecker, published a systematic presentation of research, assessment and evidential value of forensic handwriting examination in 1993. It gives an overview of the relevant topics and discussions from research and practice. Hecker also deals with the terms “graphology”, “writing psychology” and “writing comparison” both in terms of the scientific basis and with regard to their practical relevance. In particular, he draws attention to the fact that practical work by graphologists as writing experts without appropriate additional specialist training is problematic.

Angelika Seibt further differentiated the comparative written findings by differentiating between general and special features in the 8 basic graphic dimensions as well as using scales and measuring techniques (1994, 2000, 2006). An evaluation of the findings under hypotheses using defined arguments in which empirical rules are expressed was presented in 1999. She proposed to obtain the degree of probability as a result of an investigation by comparing hypotheses, whereby it makes sense to express this degree of probability numerically (1999, 2005). Finally, she has compiled quality features of forensic written reports (2004a) and dealt with the topics of “writing psychology” and “writing comparison” (2004b, 2006).

Scripture Psychology and Scripture Comparison

In practice, the terms “ graphology ”, “ writing psychology ” and “writing comparison” are often confused by laypeople. The 3 terms can be distinguished, but in addition to the differences there are also overlaps.

The practical work of a handwriting expert differs from the practical work of a graphologist. In writing psychology research there are points of contact that are interesting for both areas. However, a clear distinction between writing comparison and graphology is necessary. Forensic handwriting comparison has different goals and different methods than graphology:

  • Graphology aims to capture aspects of the writer's personality from the expression of handwriting . For this purpose, manuscripts are interpreted. Graphology is not a method based on empirical science. Attempts at a psychological validation of graphological personality diagnostics have so far led to unsatisfactory results.
  • The task of forensic handwriting comparison is to identify the author. Forensic handwriting comparison is an empirical science. There are no interpretations here, only observable findings and a set of evaluation rules that must be based on empirical science.

The above-mentioned validity problems of graphology are irrelevant for forensic handwriting comparison, since there are no interpretations and no personality psychological interpretations in the comparison of handwriting. In forensic handwriting comparison reports, no statements are made about the personality of a writer.

The forensic handwriting comparison report of a handwriting expert is evidence in court. Such a forensic written report must not contain any interpretations or speculations. The statements of a handwriting expert must be derived from the observable findings. And the assessment of findings by writing experts must be based on empirical rules. Social science research and empirical writing psychology are necessary to evaluate the findings.

The term “writing psychology” is relevant for both graphology and writing comparison. As early as 1984 Lothar Michel spoke out in favor of writing psychology as a basic discipline.

“Writing psychology” is to be understood as an empirical method of examining handwriting. The task of such a writing psychology is to research the psychological, physiological, technical writing and social development conditions of handwritten writing with empirical methods.

The subject area and the terms “graphology”, “writing psychology” and “writing comparison” have been discussed in detail among colleagues and in the specialist literature; they will u. a. treated in the specialist books by Michel, Hecker and Seibt. It should be possible to reach a consensus that, on the one hand, a demarcation from graphology and, on the other hand, research into the developmental conditions of writing and writing behavior with empirical methods of psychology is necessary.

The international situation

In the English-speaking world, comparative writing is referred to as questioned document examination . As the publications by Hecker 1993 show, a demarcation from graphology is one of the first and most important statements to emphasize the empirical basis of the comparison of scripts. The term “writing psychology” is missing in the international arena. The physical-technical examination procedures are international.

Comparison of Scriptures in History

For the historian, the "written comparison" is an important method of document criticism .

literature

Textbooks
  • Wolfgang Conrad, Brigitte Stier (Hrsg.): Basics, methods and results of the forensic writing examination - Festschrift for Lothar Michel. Schmidt-Römhild, Lübeck 1989, ISBN 3-7950-0097-1 .
  • Manfred R. Hecker: Forensic handwriting examination - a systematic presentation of research, assessment and evidential value. Kriminalistik Verlag, Heidelberg 1993, ISBN 3-7832-0792-4 .
  • Norbert Köller, Kai Nissen, Michael Rieß, Erwin Sadorf: Probabilistic conclusions in written reports . For the justification and standardization of probability statements in expert reports. Luchterhand, Munich 2004, ISBN 3-472-05857-9 .
  • Lothar Michel : Judicial comparative literature - an introduction to basics, methods and practice. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1982, ISBN 3-11-002188-9 .
  • Heinrich Pfanne : The writing expertise and its importance for the jurisprudence. Greifenverlag, Rudolstadt 1954.
  • Peter W. Pfefferli: The track - guide for forensic practice. Kriminalistik Verlag, Heidelberg 2005, ISBN 3-7832-0004-0 .
  • Angelika Seibt : Forensic written reports - introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, ISBN 3-406-45341-4 .
  • Angelika Seibt: Signatures and Testaments - Practice of forensic written examination. CH Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-58113-7 .
  • Angelika Seibt: Quality features of forensic written reports. Kindle e-book, 2016.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Lothar Michel: Judicial comparison of writings - an introduction to basics, methods and practice. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1982, pp. 224-236.
  2. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic written reports - introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, pp. 12-24.
  3. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Problems with the examination of photocopies. (PDF; 423 kB). In: Journal for Writing Psychology and Writing Comparison. 68, 2004, pp. 164-174.
  4. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Quality features of forensic written reports. (PDF; 82 kB). In: Journal for Writing Psychology and Writing Comparison. 68, 2004, pp. 44-62.
  5. ↑ Peter W. Pfefferli: Physical-technical methods of forensic writing examination. In: Wolfgang Conrad, Brigitte Stier (Hrsg.): Basics, methods and results of the forensic written examination. Schmidt-Römhild, Lübeck 1989, pp. 117-137.
  6. ↑ Lothar Michel: Judicial comparison of writings - an introduction to basics, methods and practice. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1982, pp. 62-68.
  7. ↑ Manfred R. Hecker: Forensic handwriting investigation - a systematic presentation of research, assessment and evidential value. Kriminalistik Verlag, Heidelberg 1993, pp. 131–162.
  8. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic written reports - introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, pp. 66-77.
  9. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Signatures and Testaments, Practice of Forensic Written Examination. CH Beck, Munich 2008, pp. 97-152.
  10. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Writing Psychology - Theories, Research Results, Scientific Theory Basics. Profil-Verlag, Munich 1994, pp. 181-272.
  11. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Comparative written findings: scales and measuring techniques. In: Journal for Writing Psychology and Writing Comparison. 64, 2000, pp. 38-53.
  12. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic written reports - introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, pp. 78-105.
  13. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Signatures and Testaments, Practice of Forensic Written Examination. CH Beck, Munich 2008, pp. 153-184.
  14. ^ Kai Nissen: Finding and evaluating findings using the example of the handwriting examination. In: The expert. 1991, pp. 283-290.
  15. ^ Kai Nissen: The elements of the assessment process. In: Mannheim booklets for comparison of scripts. 1995, pp. 97-112.
  16. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic written reports - introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, pp. 106-141.
  17. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic handwriting examination as a science. In: Criminology. 60, 2006, pp. 599-608.
  18. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic written reports, introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, pp. 107-117.
  19. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Signatures and Testaments, Practice of Forensic Written Examination. CH Beck, Munich 2008, pp. 160-181.
  20. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Signatures and Testaments, Practice of Forensic Written Examination. CH Beck, Munich 2008, pp. 185-198.
  21. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic written reports - introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, pp. 142-145.
  22. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Probability as a comparison of hypotheses. In: Criminology. 59, 2005, pp. 175-179.
  23. ↑ Peter W. Pfefferli: The trace - adviser for tracing practice. Kriminalistik Verlag, Heidelberg 2005.
  24. ^ Walter Bayerlein: Practical handbook expert law. CH Beck, Munich 2004.
  25. ↑ Peter Zimmermann: What an expert can be liable for, and why that is so . In: The expert . No. 28 , 2001, p. 21-34, 53-63, 85-92 .
  26. ↑ Peter Zimmermann: Expert duties . In: The expert . No. 33 , 2006, pp. 304-316 .
  27. ↑ Institute for Written and Document Investigation (ISU) e. V. Otto Selz Inst. for Applied Psychology, Mannheim Center for Work and Health.
  28. ↑ Heinrich Pfanne: The writing expertise and its importance for the jurisprudence. Greifenverlag, Rudolstadt 1954.
  29. ^ Heinrich pan: handwriting adjustment. Bovier, Bonn 1971.
  30. ↑ Kai Nissen: Theory of Assessment. In: Archives for Criminology. 172, 1983, pp. 143-152.
  31. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic writing comparison and writing psychology. In: Criminology. 58, 2004, pp. 267-272.
  32. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Social science research on changes in writing. In: Criminology. 12, 2013, pp. 766-775.
  33. ↑ Lothar Michel: For a writing psychology as a basic discipline. In: Journal of Human Studies. 48, 1984, pp. 278-288.
  34. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Writing Psychology - Theories, Research Results, Scientific Theory Basics. Profil-Verlag, Munich 1994, pp. 14-34.
  35. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic written reports - introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, pp. 59-65.
  36. ↑ Lothar Michel: Judicial comparison of writings - an introduction to basics, methods and practice. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 1982, pp. 3-8.
  37. ↑ Manfred R. Hecker: Forensic handwriting investigation - a systematic presentation of research, assessment and evidential value. Kriminalistik Verlag, Heidelberg 1993, pp. 45–55.
  38. ↑ Angelika Seibt: Forensic written reports - introduction to method and practice. CH Beck, Munich 1999, pp. 25-38.