Handwriting Examination

Advanced Document & Handwriting Examination Services, LLC

Welcome to the Welcome to the Tarrant County Tarrant County

Medical Examiners Medical Examiners SeminarSeminarDecember 2007December 2007

LINDA JAMES, B.C.D.E., LINDA JAMES, B.C.D.E., DiplomateDiplomate


Linda James, B.C.D.E., DiplomateLinda James, B.C.D.E., DiplomateStatement of QualificationsStatement of Qualifications

EDUCATION & TRAININGEDUCATION & TRAININGNational Association of Document Examiners: Board Certified Document Examiner, Re-certified 01/01/06National Association of Document Examiners: Board Certified Document Examiner, Re-certified 01/01/06National Questioned Document AssociationNational Questioned Document Association Forensic Document Examination Course, Forensic Document Examination Course, 264 Study Hours 264 Study HoursApprenticeship/Hands-on Internship: Microscopes/Photography/Court Exhibits/Fax Machines/Printers/Copiers Apprenticeship/Hands-on Internship: Microscopes/Photography/Court Exhibits/Fax Machines/Printers/Copiers Typewriter/Ink Pens/Paper/Document Cases/Court/Procedures/Preparation/Testifying, over 200 Technical HoursTypewriter/Ink Pens/Paper/Document Cases/Court/Procedures/Preparation/Testifying, over 200 Technical HoursNational Questioned Document Association: National Questioned Document Association: Certified Document ExaminerCertified Document Examiner, 315 Study Hours., 315 Study Hours.College Notre-Dame-de-Foy, Canada: College Notre-Dame-de-Foy, Canada: Introduction to Document Examination Equipmen/Introduction to Document Examination Equipmen/45 Hrs/3 College Credits45 Hrs/3 College CreditsAmerican Institute of Applied Science: American Institute of Applied Science: Police Photography, Questioned DocumentsPolice Photography, Questioned DocumentsAmerican Institute of Applied Science: American Institute of Applied Science: Forensic ScienceForensic Science, 230 Study Hours/6 College Credits/Burlington County, 230 Study Hours/6 College Credits/Burlington CountyNorth Central Texas Council of Governments: Regional North Central Texas Council of Governments: Regional Police AcademyPolice Academy Basic Instructor Course, Basic Instructor Course, 40 Hours40 HoursTotal of 23 College Credits Earned and Applied Toward an Associate Degree in Criminal JusticeTotal of 23 College Credits Earned and Applied Toward an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice

INSTRUCTOR INSTRUCTOR State Licensed Instructor,State Licensed Instructor, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationTexas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education

Texas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies/Association of Certified Fraud ExaminersTexas Board of Private Investigators and Private Security Agencies/Association of Certified Fraud ExaminersFirst Instructor/National Questioned Document Association Document Examination Course, 1992 - 1997 First Instructor/National Questioned Document Association Document Examination Course, 1992 - 1997

GIVEN AUTHORIZATION TO USE COURSE MATERIALS FOR INSTRUCTIONGIVEN AUTHORIZATION TO USE COURSE MATERIALS FOR INSTRUCTIONAmerican Institute of Applied Science/Questioned Document SectionAmerican Institute of Applied Science/Questioned Document Section

PUBLICATIONSPUBLICATIONS2001: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/2001: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/Examination of Faxed DocumentsExamination of Faxed Documents1999: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/1999: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/Document ManipulationDocument Manipulation1996: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/1996: National Association of Document Examiner Journal/The Silent WitnessThe Silent Witness

BOARD POSITIONSBOARD POSITIONS2007: 1st Vice President of the National Association of Document Examiners2007: 1st Vice President of the National Association of Document Examiners2001-07: Certification Committee of the National Association of Document Examiners2001-07: Certification Committee of the National Association of Document Examiners2000-05: Board of Director, By-Laws Chairman of the National Association of Document Examiners2000-05: Board of Director, By-Laws Chairman of the National Association of Document Examiners2001-02: Secretary of the Association Certified Fraud Examiners, Dallas, Texas2001-02: Secretary of the Association Certified Fraud Examiners, Dallas, Texas1998-99: Associate Director of the Association Certified Fraud Examiners, Dallas, Texas1998-99: Associate Director of the Association Certified Fraud Examiners, Dallas, Texas

PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPSPROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPSAcademy of Criminal Justice Sciences, National Association of Document Examiners, Texas Division-Intl. Association for Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, National Association of Document Examiners, Texas Division-Intl. Association for Identification, Forgery Investigator’s Association of Texas, International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Identification, Forgery Investigator’s Association of Texas, International Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Analysts, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, International Association of Crime Analyst, American Society of Analysts, Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, International Association of Crime Analyst, American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the Development of Forensic Science Standards. Forensic Sciences Section (E30) Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the Development of Forensic Science Standards. Forensic Sciences Section (E30) Voting Member, and Questioned Documents Section (E30.02) Voting Member. Associate member of the Association of Voting Member, and Questioned Documents Section (E30.02) Voting Member. Associate member of the Association of Forensic Document Examiners (AFDE).Forensic Document Examiners (AFDE).



OPINIONS GIVEN ON THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF CASESOPINIONS GIVEN ON THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF CASES Ink and Paper/Recovered Hidden Writing Death Threats/Famous signatures on Ink and Paper/Recovered Hidden Writing Death Threats/Famous signatures on

paintings/bookspaintings/booksDisputed Wills/Lease AgreementsDisputed Wills/Lease Agreements Self-inking Stamped Impressions Self-inking Stamped ImpressionsForged Signatures/Contracts/ChecksForged Signatures/Contracts/Checks Typewriter - Alteration/Additions Typewriter - Alteration/AdditionsDating Documents, Photo CopiesDating Documents, Photo Copies Medical Records & Documents/Indented Medical Records & Documents/Indented writingwritingStolen Credit Cards/Falsified Identity CardsStolen Credit Cards/Falsified Identity Cards Falsified Annuity Claims/Sequential Falsified Annuity Claims/Sequential WritingWritingInternational Case Involving KidnappingInternational Case Involving Kidnapping Birth Certificates/Immigration Documents Birth Certificates/Immigration Documents Capital Murder Cases/Alleged Rape CasesCapital Murder Cases/Alleged Rape Cases Bank Signature Bank Signature Cards/Embezzlement/Diary EntriesCards/Embezzlement/Diary EntriesFalsified Life Insurance Forms/Traced Signatures Falsified Land Title Company Falsified Life Insurance Forms/Traced Signatures Falsified Land Title Company Forms/Divorce PapersForms/Divorce PapersStock Certificates/ Mail Fraud/Election BallotsStock Certificates/ Mail Fraud/Election Ballots Altered College Altered College Records/Tests/Holographic WillsRecords/Tests/Holographic WillsThreatening Notes/Anonymous NotesThreatening Notes/Anonymous Notes Laser Printing Removal/Toner Anchorage Laser Printing Removal/Toner AnchorageBankruptcy/IRS Documents/Warranty DeedsBankruptcy/IRS Documents/Warranty Deeds Bank Security Agreements/Miranda Bank Security Agreements/Miranda RightsRightsAdoption Papers/Disguised WritingAdoption Papers/Disguised Writing Stolen U. S. Treasury Checks/Corporate Minutes Stolen U. S. Treasury Checks/Corporate Minutes

APPOINTMENTSAPPOINTMENTSDallas County Criminal District Court, United States District Court, Dallas Division, Bell County Dallas County Criminal District Court, United States District Court, Dallas Division, Bell County District Court, Paris Texas County Criminal Court, Collin County Criminal Court, Practicum District Court, Paris Texas County Criminal Court, Collin County Criminal Court, Practicum Supervisor/Prescott College/Master of Arts Program.Supervisor/Prescott College/Master of Arts Program.

PROFICIENCY TESTINGPROFICIENCY TESTING2005/3006/2007: Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. 2005/3006/2007: Collaborative Testing Services, Inc. (Handwriting and Document Examination)(Handwriting and Document Examination)



PRESENTATIONSPRESENTATIONS2007: 2007: Instruments Employed by Document ExaminersInstruments Employed by Document Examiners – TCDLA 5th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX – TCDLA 5th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX 2007: 2007: A Forensic Look At Medical RecordsA Forensic Look At Medical Records AORN (Association of Peri Operative Registered Nurse), Plano, TX AORN (Association of Peri Operative Registered Nurse), Plano, TX 2007: 2007: Principles in Forensic Document Examinations Principles in Forensic Document Examinations TALI’s Super Conference Irving, TX TALI’s Super Conference Irving, TX 2007: 2007: Identifying Graphic Patterns in SignaturesIdentifying Graphic Patterns in Signatures-Poster Presentation Annual NADE Conference, Tucson , AZ -Poster Presentation Annual NADE Conference, Tucson , AZ 2006: 2006: What Can a Document Examiner Do?What Can a Document Examiner Do? – TCDLA 4th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX – TCDLA 4th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX 2006: 2006: Taking Proper Request Writing SamplesTaking Proper Request Writing Samples TALI’s Southwest Super Conference San Antonio, TX TALI’s Southwest Super Conference San Antonio, TX 2006: 2006: The Field of Forensic Document ExaminationThe Field of Forensic Document Examination North Texas University Forensic Science Club Denton North Texas University Forensic Science Club Denton 2006: 2006: Forensic Document Examiner’s Lab and CasesForensic Document Examiner’s Lab and Cases - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX 2005: 2005: Cross Examining the Document ExaminerCross Examining the Document Examiner – TCDLA 3rd Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX – TCDLA 3rd Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX 2005: 2005: President Bush National Guard Documents and CBSPresident Bush National Guard Documents and CBS , N.A.D.E., Quebec, Canada , N.A.D.E., Quebec, Canada 2005: 2005: Business – Contract or Employment Workers for the Document Examiner,Business – Contract or Employment Workers for the Document Examiner, N.A.D.E., Quebec, Canada N.A.D.E., Quebec, Canada 2004: 2004: What is aWhat is a Forensic Document Examiner?Forensic Document Examiner? – Plano Kiwanis Club, Plano, Texas – Plano Kiwanis Club, Plano, Texas 2004: 2004: Science and CrimeScience and Crime - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX 2004: 2004: Forensic Document Examination in the 21st CenturyForensic Document Examination in the 21st Century - TCDLA 2nd Annual Forensics Seminar, Plano, TX - TCDLA 2nd Annual Forensics Seminar, Plano, TX 2003: 2003: Forensic Document &Handwriting ExaminationsForensic Document &Handwriting Examinations - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX - Forensic Science Class - Austin College, Sherman, TX 2002: 2002: What is a Forensic Document Examiner? What is a Forensic Document Examiner? Rotary Club - Arlington DivisionRotary Club - Arlington Division 2001: 2001: Forensic Document ExaminationForensic Document Examination, AICPA National Conference, Dallas, Texas , AICPA National Conference, Dallas, Texas 2001: 2001: Unique Cases and Their SolutionsUnique Cases and Their Solutions, Insurance Fraud Education Conference, Orlando, Florida , Insurance Fraud Education Conference, Orlando, Florida 2001: 2001: Unique Cases and Their SolutionsUnique Cases and Their Solutions, Annual N.A.D.E. Conference, Crawley, England , Annual N.A.D.E. Conference, Crawley, England 2000: 2000: Handwriting AnalysisHandwriting Analysis -Texas Association of College and University Auditors, Corpus Christi, TX -Texas Association of College and University Auditors, Corpus Christi, TX 2000: 2000: Document and Handwriting AnalysisDocument and Handwriting Analysis - Association of Government Accountants, Dallas Chapter - Association of Government Accountants, Dallas Chapter 2000: S2000: Scientific Document Examinationscientific Document Examinations - Chapter of the ACFE, Ft. Worth - Chapter of the ACFE, Ft. Worth 1999: 1999: Forensic Document & Handwriting AnalysisForensic Document & Handwriting Analysis - The Institute of Internal Auditors, Dallas Chapter - The Institute of Internal Auditors, Dallas Chapter 1999: 1999: Red Flags of ForgeryRed Flags of Forgery - The Institute of Internal Auditors - The Institute of Internal Auditors1999: 1999: Questioned Documents & ForgeryQuestioned Documents & Forgery - North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington, Texas - North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington, Texas 1997: 1997: Forensic Document TechniquesForensic Document Techniques - Seminar Presentation to Investigators/Peers, Dallas, Texas - Seminar Presentation to Investigators/Peers, Dallas, Texas1997: 1997: Illustrating and Demonstrating Letters in Court -Illustrating and Demonstrating Letters in Court - Annual Conference of N.Q.D.A., Dallas, Texas Annual Conference of N.Q.D.A., Dallas, Texas1997: 1997: Signs of Forgery Signs of Forgery - Gateway Bank, Garland, Texas- Gateway Bank, Garland, Texas1996: 1996: Scientific Document Examination: What It’s All About - Scientific Document Examination: What It’s All About - ACFE, Dallas/Ft. Worth ChapterACFE, Dallas/Ft. Worth Chapter1996: 1996: The Visible Effects of Speed in HandwritingThe Visible Effects of Speed in Handwriting - Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas - Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas1996: 1996: Employees in the Document Examiners OfficeEmployees in the Document Examiners Office - Dallas, Texas - Dallas, Texas1995: 1995: How I Did It - Three CasesHow I Did It - Three Cases - - Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas 1995: 1995: Faxes and FraudFaxes and Fraud - Annual National Association of Document Examiners Conference, San Antonio, Texas - Annual National Association of Document Examiners Conference, San Antonio, Texas1995: 1995: A Fingerprint in TimeA Fingerprint in Time - Annual Conference of N.Q.D.A., Dallas, Texas - Annual Conference of N.Q.D.A., Dallas, Texas1995: 1995: Questioned DocumentsQuestioned Documents - Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas - Collin County Community College, Plano, Texas



CONTINUING EDUCATIONCONTINUING EDUCATION 2007: TCDLA 5th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX 2007: TCDLA 5th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX

2007: Association of Forensic Document Examiners Symposium, Tucson, AZ 2007: Association of Forensic Document Examiners Symposium, Tucson, AZ 2007: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Tucson , AZ 2007: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Tucson , AZ 2006: FIAT/IAFCI 2nd Annual Conference, Galveston, Texas 2006: FIAT/IAFCI 2nd Annual Conference, Galveston, Texas 2006: 69th Annual Conference of the Texas Division of the International Association for Identification 2006: 69th Annual Conference of the Texas Division of the International Association for Identification 2006: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, at Sea 2006: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, at Sea 2005: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Quebec, Canada 2005: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Quebec, Canada 2004: FIAT Annual Conference TCLEOSE/Austin Police Department, Austin, Texas 2004: FIAT Annual Conference TCLEOSE/Austin Police Department, Austin, Texas 2004: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Anaheim, California 2004: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Anaheim, California 2004: American Academy of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas 2004: American Academy of Forensic Sciences Dallas, Texas 2003: National Questioned Document Association, New Orleans, Louisiana 2003: National Questioned Document Association, New Orleans, Louisiana 2003: Cyber Crime and Terrorism, MetroPlex 2003, Dallas, Texas 2003: Cyber Crime and Terrorism, MetroPlex 2003, Dallas, Texas 2001: AICPA National Conference on Fraud & Litigation Services, Dallas, Texas 2001: AICPA National Conference on Fraud & Litigation Services, Dallas, Texas 2001: 64th TIAI Annual Education Conference, Digital Photography, Bob May (FBI), Arlington, Texas 2001: 64th TIAI Annual Education Conference, Digital Photography, Bob May (FBI), Arlington, Texas 2001: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Crawley, England 2001: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Crawley, England 2001: National Questioned Document Association Educational Conference, Dallas, Texas2001: National Questioned Document Association Educational Conference, Dallas, Texas2000: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico 2000: National Association of Document Examiners Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico 2000: National Questioned Document Association Educational Conference, Dallas, Texas 2000: National Questioned Document Association Educational Conference, Dallas, Texas 1998: Deloitte & Touche, Cybercrime & Computer Forensics/FBI Special Agents, U.S. Attorney, CFE1998: Deloitte & Touche, Cybercrime & Computer Forensics/FBI Special Agents, U.S. Attorney, CFE1998: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Proving Fraud/ Master Peace Officer James D. Ratley1998: Association of Certified Fraud Examiners Proving Fraud/ Master Peace Officer James D. Ratley 1998: Criminal Justice Training Manager, Don Rabon, ACFE Fraud Examiner’s Seminar, Dallas, TX1998: Criminal Justice Training Manager, Don Rabon, ACFE Fraud Examiner’s Seminar, Dallas, TX1998: Secret Service Trained Handwriting Examiner, Chief Deputy, Denton County, TX1998: Secret Service Trained Handwriting Examiner, Chief Deputy, Denton County, TX1997: The Forgery Investigator’s Association of Texas, Georgetown, Texas1997: The Forgery Investigator’s Association of Texas, Georgetown, Texas1997: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas 1997: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas 1996: National Association of Document Examiners, Baltimore, Maryland1996: National Association of Document Examiners, Baltimore, Maryland1996: FBI Examiner, Larry Ziegler Professional Development Seminar/Court Testimony/, Maryland1996: FBI Examiner, Larry Ziegler Professional Development Seminar/Court Testimony/, Maryland1996: Statement Analysis, Interviewing, & Interrogation Seminar, Dallas, Texas1996: Statement Analysis, Interviewing, & Interrogation Seminar, Dallas, Texas1996: ACJS Professional Development Seminar/Technocrimes/August Bequia, Las Vegas, Nevada1996: ACJS Professional Development Seminar/Technocrimes/August Bequia, Las Vegas, Nevada1996: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada1996: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Las Vegas, Nevada1996: American Academy of Forensic Sciences (48th Annual Meeting), Nashville, Tennessee1996: American Academy of Forensic Sciences (48th Annual Meeting), Nashville, Tennessee1995: National Association of Document Examiners, San Antonio, Texas1995: National Association of Document Examiners, San Antonio, Texas1995: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas 1995: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas 1995: Content Analysis Seminar, Dallas, Texas1995: Content Analysis Seminar, Dallas, Texas1994: American Board of Forensic Examiners, Branson, Missouri1994: American Board of Forensic Examiners, Branson, Missouri1994: National Questioned Document Association, Kansas City, Missouri1994: National Questioned Document Association, Kansas City, Missouri1992: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas1992: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas1991: National Questioned Document Association, Santa Fe, New Mexico 1991: National Questioned Document Association, Santa Fe, New Mexico 1990: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas1990: National Questioned Document Association, Dallas, Texas



COURT EXPERIENCE:COURT EXPERIENCE: 1994 through 2007 1994 through 2007Qualified under the Daubert/duPont guideline/Opinions Judicially accepted and admittedQualified under the Daubert/duPont guideline/Opinions Judicially accepted and admitted

2007: Texas Workforce Commission2002: Allen County in Fort Wayne,2007: Texas Workforce Commission2002: Allen County in Fort Wayne, Indiana Indiana 2007: 160th Dallas County District Court, Texas2002: Dallas County Probate Court No. 3, Texas 2007: 160th Dallas County District Court, Texas2002: Dallas County Probate Court No. 3, Texas 2007: 121st Judicial District Court, Brownfield, Texas2002: 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas 2007: 121st Judicial District Court, Brownfield, Texas2002: 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas 2007: 7th Smith County District Court, Texas, D.A.2002: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas 2007: 7th Smith County District Court, Texas, D.A.2002: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas 2007: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Beaumont Division, TX2001: 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas 2007: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Beaumont Division, TX2001: 68th District Court, Dallas County, Texas 2007: 114th Smith County District Court, Texas, D.A. 2001: 27th St. Landry Parish, 2007: 114th Smith County District Court, Texas, D.A. 2001: 27th St. Landry Parish, Louisiana Louisiana (DA) (DA) 2007: 160th Dallas County District Court, Texas2001: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas 2007: 160th Dallas County District Court, Texas2001: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas 2007: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas2001: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District, Texas 2007: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas2001: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District, Texas 2007: 297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2001: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas 2007: 297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2001: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas 2006: U.S. Navy General Court-Martial, Pensacola, FL2001: PUC Hearing Austin, Texas 2006: U.S. Navy General Court-Martial, Pensacola, FL2001: PUC Hearing Austin, Texas 2006: 18th Judicial District Court, Johnson County, TX 2001: 193rd Dallas County District Court, Texas 2006: 18th Judicial District Court, Johnson County, TX 2001: 193rd Dallas County District Court, Texas 2006 Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas 2001: Hopkins County Court, Texas 2006 Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas 2001: Hopkins County Court, Texas 2006:297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2001: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas 2006:297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2001: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas 2006: 8th Judicial District Court/Colfax - 2006: 8th Judicial District Court/Colfax - Raton, NMRaton, NM2001: 19th East Baton Rouge Parish, 2001: 19th East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana Louisiana 2005: 422nd District of Kaufman County, TX2000: State Bar of Texas 2005: 422nd District of Kaufman County, TX2000: State Bar of Texas 2005: 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, TX2000: 2005: 366th Judicial District Court, Collin County, TX2000: Singapore Singapore Subordinate Criminal Court Subordinate Criminal Court 2005: Workers’ Compensation CCH, Mt. Pleasant, TX2000: 67th Tarrant County District Court, Texas 2005: Workers’ Compensation CCH, Mt. Pleasant, TX2000: 67th Tarrant County District Court, Texas 2005: 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County,TX2000: Denton County District Court, Texas 2005: 86th Judicial District Court, Kaufman County,TX2000: Denton County District Court, Texas 2005: 297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2000: Brazos County District Court, Texas 2005: 297th Tarrant County Judicial District Court, TX2000: Brazos County District Court, Texas 2005: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas1999: Walworth County, 2005: 116th Dallas County District Court, Texas1999: Walworth County, WisconsinWisconsin 2004: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas1999: Tarrant County JP Court, Texas 2004: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas1999: Tarrant County JP Court, Texas 2004: NASD Arbitration, Dallas, Texas1999: Dallas County District Court, Texas 2004: NASD Arbitration, Dallas, Texas1999: Dallas County District Court, Texas 2004: U.S. District Court, District of 2004: U.S. District Court, District of AlaskaAlaska1998: Dallas County District Court, Texas 1998: Dallas County District Court, Texas 2004: U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas1997: Tarrant County Court Number 2, Texas 2004: U.S. District Court, Northern District, Texas1997: Tarrant County Court Number 2, Texas 2004: 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas1997: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas 2004: 44th District Court, Dallas County, Texas1997: Dallas County Probate Court No. 2, Texas 2004: U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Texas1997: 236th Tarrant County District Court, Texas 2004: U.S. District Court, Eastern District, Texas1997: 236th Tarrant County District Court, Texas 2004: 2004: Albuquerque, N.M.Albuquerque, N.M. 2nd Judicial District Court1997: Denton County Probate Court, Texas 2nd Judicial District Court1997: Denton County Probate Court, Texas 2004: Dallas 134th District Court, Texas1997: McLennan County Court, Texas 2004: Dallas 134th District Court, Texas1997: McLennan County Court, Texas 2004: Texas Workforce Commission1996: NASD Arbitration Hearing, Dallas, Texas 2004: Texas Workforce Commission1996: NASD Arbitration Hearing, Dallas, Texas 2003: 59thJudicial District of Grayson County, Texas 1995: Dallas County Probate Court, Texas 2003: 59thJudicial District of Grayson County, Texas 1995: Dallas County Probate Court, Texas 2003: Tarrant County Probate Court #2, Texas1995: Hunt County District Court, Texas2003: Tarrant County Probate Court #2, Texas1995: Hunt County District Court, Texas2003: State Bar of Texas Disciplinary Counsel2003: State Bar of Texas Disciplinary Counsel2003: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas2003: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas2003: Morris County 76-276 District, Texas2003: Morris County 76-276 District, Texas2003: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas2003: Dallas County Probate Court Number 2, Texas1994: Bell County District Court, Texas2003: Dallas 195th Judicial District Court, Texas1994: Bell County District Court, Texas2003: Dallas 195th Judicial District Court, Texas1994: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Dallas Division, Texas1994: U.S.Bankruptcy Court, Dallas Division, Texas1994: Dallas County District Court, Texas 1994: Dallas County District Court, Texas 1994: U. S. District Court, Dallas Division, Texas1994: U. S. District Court, Dallas Division, Texas


OBJECTIVESOBJECTIVES

1.1. Handwriting Examination vs. Right to Handwriting Examination vs. Right to PrivacyPrivacy

2.2. Legal Status of Handwriting EvaluationLegal Status of Handwriting Evaluation

3.3. Handwriting is Brain WritingHandwriting is Brain Writing

4.4. The types of Non-Destructive Testing of The types of Non-Destructive Testing of DocumentsDocuments

5.5. Empirically testing the hypothesisEmpirically testing the hypothesis

6.6. Four things that contribute to a reliable Four things that contribute to a reliable conclusionconclusion

7.7. Specialized trainingSpecialized training


1.1. Handwriting Examination vs. Right Handwriting Examination vs. Right to Privacyto Privacy

The legality of handwriting analysis has been The legality of handwriting analysis has been established in court decisions within the past ten established in court decisions within the past ten years, relating to the national labor relations act, the years, relating to the national labor relations act, the equal employment opportunity commission and the equal employment opportunity commission and the Privacy Act of 1974.Privacy Act of 1974.

““Handwriting is behavior in public and therefore (handwriting Handwriting is behavior in public and therefore (handwriting analysis) is not an intrusion into privacy.” This was ruled in the analysis) is not an intrusion into privacy.” This was ruled in the cases of U.S. vs. Rosinsky, 547 F2ND 249 (CA 4TH 1977) and cases of U.S. vs. Rosinsky, 547 F2ND 249 (CA 4TH 1977) and U.S. vs. Hazelwood School District, 534 F2ND 805 (CA 8TH MO U.S. vs. Hazelwood School District, 534 F2ND 805 (CA 8TH MO 19761976

The university of California researched precedents The university of California researched precedents where handwriting analysis has been used in courts where handwriting analysis has been used in courts throughout the nation as far back as 1881. some of throughout the nation as far back as 1881. some of this research can be found in this research can be found in American Law Reports American Law Reports AnnotatedAnnotated (103 A.L.R. Pages 900-901) (103 A.L.R. Pages 900-901)


2.2. Legal Status of Handwriting Legal Status of Handwriting EvaluationEvaluation

Handwriting examination has overcome challenges under 2 Handwriting examination has overcome challenges under 2 U.S. Constitutional Amendments (4U.S. Constitutional Amendments (4thth and 5 and 5thth Amendments) Amendments)

44thth Amendment Rulings: Amendment Rulings: U.S. vs. DOE (Handwriting is considered under property U.S. vs. DOE (Handwriting is considered under property

relationships re public viewrelationships re public view U.S. vs. Katz (Handwriting has no protection for what a U.S. vs. Katz (Handwriting has no protection for what a

person knowingly exposes to the public)person knowingly exposes to the public) U.S. vs. Mara -1973 (Handwriting is considered under U.S. vs. Mara -1973 (Handwriting is considered under

property relationships re public view)property relationships re public view) U.S. vs. Sydney W. Rosinsky -1977 (Handwriting considered U.S. vs. Sydney W. Rosinsky -1977 (Handwriting considered

under property relationships re public view)under property relationships re public view)

55thth Amendment Rulings: Amendment Rulings: California vs. Gilbert -1967 (Production of handwriting California vs. Gilbert -1967 (Production of handwriting

exemplars)exemplars) U.S. vs. Dianisio -1973 (Production of handwriting exemplars)U.S. vs. Dianisio -1973 (Production of handwriting exemplars)


3.3. Handwriting is Brain Handwriting is Brain WritingWriting

““The preconscious nature of writing. A term The preconscious nature of writing. A term formulated by Wilhelm Preyer, a professor of formulated by Wilhelm Preyer, a professor of physiology at Jena, Germany, in 1895 after physiology at Jena, Germany, in 1895 after experiments that led him to the conclusion experiments that led him to the conclusion that handwriting is a centrally organized that handwriting is a centrally organized function. He demonstrated that similar function. He demonstrated that similar writing patterns occurred when writing was writing patterns occurred when writing was executed by holding the writing instrument in executed by holding the writing instrument in the right hand, the left hand, the mouth, and the right hand, the left hand, the mouth, and the toes.”the toes.”

Fundamentals of Document Examination, Edna W. RobertsonFundamentals of Document Examination, Edna W. Robertson


4.4. The types of Non-Destructive Testing of The types of Non-Destructive Testing of DocumentsDocuments

Combination of low magnification, Combination of low magnification, examination through colored filters to examination through colored filters to enhance contrastenhance contrast

High contrast photographyHigh contrast photography Infra-red and infra-red luminescence Infra-red and infra-red luminescence

examination using a video spectral examination using a video spectral comparator device to enhance the imagecomparator device to enhance the image

An examination of the indentations An examination of the indentations caused by the writing instrument using caused by the writing instrument using low angle, or oblique light techniques, or low angle, or oblique light techniques, or ESDAESDA


4.4. The types of Non-Destructive Testing of The types of Non-Destructive Testing of Documents Documents cont.cont.

The employment of appropriate instruments in order to The employment of appropriate instruments in order to make a proper application so that the physical make a proper application so that the physical observations are accurate and objective. I have all the observations are accurate and objective. I have all the equipment necessary for the examination of documents. equipment necessary for the examination of documents. This consists primarily of various measuring devices and This consists primarily of various measuring devices and typewriter grids for measuring handwriting and typewriter grids for measuring handwriting and typewriting and magnifiers of varying powers; 4-power, typewriting and magnifiers of varying powers; 4-power, 8-power, and 10-power magnification is used most 8-power, and 10-power magnification is used most often. If stronger magnification is necessary, a often. If stronger magnification is necessary, a stereoscopic microscope that can go up to 40-power can stereoscopic microscope that can go up to 40-power can be used. In addition, I have a light box (similar to what a be used. In addition, I have a light box (similar to what a doctor uses to view x-rays), a 35mm camera for taking doctor uses to view x-rays), a 35mm camera for taking photographs of original documents that cannot be photographs of original documents that cannot be removed from certain facilities, and the ESDA machine. removed from certain facilities, and the ESDA machine.


5.5. Empirically testing the Empirically testing the hypothesishypothesis

Webster defines scientific method as the following:Webster defines scientific method as the following:

““Principles and procedures for the Principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving systematic pursuit of knowledge involving

the recognition and formulation of a the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the observation and experiment, and the

formulation and testing of hypotheses.”formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

Webster’s New Encyclopedia Dictionary (New York: B.D. & L. 1994)Webster’s New Encyclopedia Dictionary (New York: B.D. & L. 1994)


5.5. Empirically testing the hypothesis Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.cont.

1.1. Pose a questionPose a question

2.2. Collect evidenceCollect evidence

3.3. HypothesizeHypothesize

4.4. Deduce its implicationsDeduce its implications

5.5. Test them experimentallyTest them experimentally

6.6. Accept, reject, or modify the Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesishypothesis


It has been written that what distinguishes scientific knowledge It has been written that what distinguishes scientific knowledge from other knowledge is:from other knowledge is:

1.1. the method by which it is created or collected;the method by which it is created or collected;2.2. a systematic extension of common sense; anda systematic extension of common sense; and3.3. sound skepticism, that when combined, is referred to as sound skepticism, that when combined, is referred to as

scientific method.scientific method.

District judge D. I. McKenna, in his recent decision in U.S. vs. District judge D. I. McKenna, in his recent decision in U.S. vs. Roberta and Eileen Starzecpyzel, 880 Fed. Sup. 1027, April 4, Roberta and Eileen Starzecpyzel, 880 Fed. Sup. 1027, April 4, 1995, quotes the words of Green in Expert Witness and 1995, quotes the words of Green in Expert Witness and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances Litigation, 86 N. Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances Litigation, 86 N. WU. L. Rev. 643, 645 (1992), who states:WU. L. Rev. 643, 645 (1992), who states:

““Scientific methodology today is based on generating Scientific methodology today is based on generating hypotheses and hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified; testing them to see if they can be falsified; indeed, this methodology is indeed, this methodology is what distinguished science from what distinguished science from other fields of human inquiry.”other fields of human inquiry.”



A.A. Sample case: 1Sample case: 1stst examination: examination:

REQUESTREQUEST:: The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July

of 1992 was produced in 1992.of 1992 was produced in 1992. The document was made available for examination.The document was made available for examination. Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1992.Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1992. EXAMINATION CONDUCTEDEXAMINATION CONDUCTED:: Copies were made on yellow paper of the subject document and the 1992 Copies were made on yellow paper of the subject document and the 1992

known documents in order to take contemporary notes.known documents in order to take contemporary notes. Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light

box, transparencies, ESDA, MiScope, and microphotography.box, transparencies, ESDA, MiScope, and microphotography. CONTEMPORARY NOTESCONTEMPORARY NOTES:: The typewriting that was printed on the subject document was by a laser The typewriting that was printed on the subject document was by a laser

printer.printer. The typewriting that was printed on the contemporary 1992 known The typewriting that was printed on the contemporary 1992 known

documents was by a laser printer.documents was by a laser printer. Consistent stray dots were present on the document indicating a nick in the Consistent stray dots were present on the document indicating a nick in the

drum. drum. The same pattern of stray dots were not found on other known original July The same pattern of stray dots were not found on other known original July

of 1992 documents to the subject document.of 1992 documents to the subject document. CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION:: The document may not have been produced in 1992. Proceed to the next The document may not have been produced in 1992. Proceed to the next

examination.examination.



A.A. Sample case: 2Sample case: 2ndnd examination: examination:

REQUESTREQUEST:: The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July

of 1992 was produced in 1993.of 1992 was produced in 1993. The document was made available for examination.The document was made available for examination. Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1993.Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1993. EXAMINATION CONDUCTEDEXAMINATION CONDUCTED:: Copies were made on pastel green paper of the subject document and the Copies were made on pastel green paper of the subject document and the

1993 known documents in order to take contemporary notes.1993 known documents in order to take contemporary notes. Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light



documents was by a laser printer.documents was by a laser printer. The consistent stray dots that were present on the 1992 document, The consistent stray dots that were present on the 1992 document,

indicating a nick in the drum, were not found on the 1993 known original indicating a nick in the drum, were not found on the 1993 known original documents. documents.

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION:: The document may not have been produced in 1993. Proceed to the next The document may not have been produced in 1993. Proceed to the next

examination.examination.



A.A. Sample case: 3Sample case: 3rdrd examination: examination:

REQUESTREQUEST:: The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July of The question posed was whether or not the original document dated in July of

1992 was produced in 1994.1992 was produced in 1994. The document was made available for examination.The document was made available for examination. Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1994.Hypothesize: the alleged document was produced in 1994. EXAMINATION CONDUCTEDEXAMINATION CONDUCTED:: Copies were made on pastel blue paper of the subject document and the 1994 Copies were made on pastel blue paper of the subject document and the 1994

known documents in order to take contemporary notes.known documents in order to take contemporary notes. Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light Examinations were made by employing the stereoscopic microscope, light



documents was by a laser printer.documents was by a laser printer. The consistent stray dots that were present on the 1992 document, The consistent stray dots that were present on the 1992 document,

indicating a nick in the drum, were found on the 1994 known original indicating a nick in the drum, were found on the 1994 known original documents. documents.

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSION:: The document was produced in 1994.The document was produced in 1994. Question answered.Question answered.



6.6. Four things that contribute to a reliable Four things that contribute to a reliable conclusionconclusion

The following four things contribute to a The following four things contribute to a reliable conclusion for an expert’s reliable conclusion for an expert’s opinion in forensic document opinion in forensic document examination:examination:1.1. Physical observations are accurately and Physical observations are accurately and

objectively demonstrated. objectively demonstrated. 2.2. The explanation of scientific theories is The explanation of scientific theories is

reasonable and based on proper theory and reasonable and based on proper theory and objective sources. objective sources.

3.3. Crisp and impeccable logic is applied. Crisp and impeccable logic is applied. 4.4. Precise definitions of terminology are used. Precise definitions of terminology are used.


7.7. Specialized trainingSpecialized training

No college degree available at this timeNo college degree available at this time

Only a certification for this fieldOnly a certification for this field

State approved curriculumState approved curriculum

Continuing educationContinuing education

Misleading information about schoolsMisleading information about schools

Certifying BodiesCertifying Bodies


Best EvidenceBest Evidence We are allowed to use “best evidence” when the original is not available.We are allowed to use “best evidence” when the original is not available.

Best Evidence:Best Evidence:Primary evidence, as distinguished from secondary; original, as distinguished Primary evidence, as distinguished from secondary; original, as distinguished from substitution; the best and highest evidence of which the nature of the case from substitution; the best and highest evidence of which the nature of the case is susceptible, not the highest or strongest evidence which the nature of the is susceptible, not the highest or strongest evidence which the nature of the thing to be proved admits of. The original of a written instrument is itself always thing to be proved admits of. The original of a written instrument is itself always regarded as the primary or best possible evidence of its existence and contents; regarded as the primary or best possible evidence of its existence and contents; a copy, or the recollection of a witness, would be secondary evidence. “Best a copy, or the recollection of a witness, would be secondary evidence. “Best evidence” or “primary evidence” includes the best evidence which is available to evidence” or “primary evidence” includes the best evidence which is available to a party and procurable under the existing situation, and which in its nature a party and procurable under the existing situation, and which in its nature suggests there is better evidence of the same fact, is “secondary evidence”. suggests there is better evidence of the same fact, is “secondary evidence”. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th EditionBlack's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition

Best Evidence Rule:Best Evidence Rule:A rule which requires that best evidence available be presented in lieu of less A rule which requires that best evidence available be presented in lieu of less satisfactory evidence. People v. Banks, Colo. App., 655 P. 2d 1384, 1387. This satisfactory evidence. People v. Banks, Colo. App., 655 P. 2d 1384, 1387. This rule prohibits the introduction into evidence of secondary evidence unless it is rule prohibits the introduction into evidence of secondary evidence unless it is shown that original document has been lost or destroyed or is beyond shown that original document has been lost or destroyed or is beyond jurisdiction of court without fault of the offering party; if original document is jurisdiction of court without fault of the offering party; if original document is lost, then secondary evidence is properly admissible. State v. Stephen, Mo. App., lost, then secondary evidence is properly admissible. State v. Stephen, Mo. App., 556 S.W. 2d 722, 723. Fed.R.Evid. 1002 states the basic rule as follows: “To 556 S.W. 2d 722, 723. Fed.R.Evid. 1002 states the basic rule as follows: “To prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original writing, recording, or photograph, is required, except as otherwise provided in these recording, or photograph, is required, except as otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of Congress.” rules or by Act of Congress.” ibidibid


Best EvidenceBest EvidencePrimary EvidencePrimary Evidence

Primary evidence means original or first hand evidence; the best Primary evidence means original or first hand evidence; the best evidence that the nature of the case admits of; the evidence which evidence that the nature of the case admits of; the evidence which is required in the first instance, and which must fail before is required in the first instance, and which must fail before secondary evidence can be admitted. That evidence which the secondary evidence can be admitted. That evidence which the nature of the case or question suggests as the proper means of nature of the case or question suggests as the proper means of ascertaining the truth. It is the particular means of proof which is ascertaining the truth. It is the particular means of proof which is the most natural and satisfactory of which the case admits, and the most natural and satisfactory of which the case admits, and includes the best evidence which is available to a party and includes the best evidence which is available to a party and procurable under the existing situation, and all evidence falling procurable under the existing situation, and all evidence falling short of such standard, and which in its nature suggest there is short of such standard, and which in its nature suggest there is better evidence of the same fact, is “secondary evidence”. better evidence of the same fact, is “secondary evidence”. ibidibid

Secondary EvidenceSecondary EvidenceThat which is inferior to primary or best evidence. Thus, a copy of That which is inferior to primary or best evidence. Thus, a copy of an instrument, or oral evidence of its contents, is secondary an instrument, or oral evidence of its contents, is secondary evidence of the instrument and contents. It is that species of evidence of the instrument and contents. It is that species of evidence which becomes admissible, when the primary or best evidence which becomes admissible, when the primary or best evidence of the fact in question is lost or inaccessible; as when a evidence of the fact in question is lost or inaccessible; as when a witness details orally the contents of an instrument which is lost or witness details orally the contents of an instrument which is lost or destroyed. destroyed. ibidibid


HANDWRITING OPINION HANDWRITING OPINION

TERMINOLOGYTERMINOLOGY identification identification ((definite conclusion of identitydefinite conclusion of identity)-This is the highest degree of confidence expressed by )-This is the highest degree of confidence expressed by

document examiners in handwriting comparisons. document examiners in handwriting comparisons. strong probabilitystrong probability ( (highly probable, very probablehighly probable, very probable)-The evidence is very persuasive, yet some )-The evidence is very persuasive, yet some

critical feature or quality is missing so that an identification is not in order; however, the critical feature or quality is missing so that an identification is not in order; however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were written by the same examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were written by the same individual.individual.

probableprobable-The evidence contained in the handwriting points rather strongly toward the questioned -The evidence contained in the handwriting points rather strongly toward the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual; however, it falls short of the and known writings having been written by the same individual; however, it falls short of the "virtually certain" degree of confidence."virtually certain" degree of confidence.

indications indications (evidence to suggest(evidence to suggest)-A body of writing has few features which are of significance for )-A body of writing has few features which are of significance for handwriting comparison purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of handwriting comparison purposes, but those features are in agreement with another body of writing.writing.

no conclusion no conclusion (totally inconclusive,(totally inconclusive, indeterminableindeterminable)-This is the zero point of the confidence scale. )-This is the zero point of the confidence scale. It is used when there are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned and/or It is used when there are significantly limiting factors, such as disguise in the questioned and/or known writing or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner - does not have even a leaning known writing or a lack of comparable writing, and the examiner - does not have even a leaning one way or another.one way or another.

indications did notindications did not-This carries the same weight as the -This carries the same weight as the indications indications term above; that is, it is a very term above; that is, it is a very weak opinion.weak opinion.

probably did notprobably did not-The evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings -The evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual, but, as in the having been written by the same individual, but, as in the probable probable range above, the evidence is range above, the evidence is not quite up to the “virtually certain” range quite.not quite up to the “virtually certain” range quite.

strong probability did not strong probability did not (highly probable did not, very probable did not(highly probable did not, very probable did not) -This carries the same ) -This carries the same weight as weight as strong probability strong probability on the identification side of the scale; that is, there is a virtual on the identification side of the scale; that is, there is a virtual certainty that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual.certainty that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual.

elimination-elimination-This,This, like the definite conclusion of identity, is the highest degree of confidence like the definite conclusion of identity, is the highest degree of confidence expressed by the document examiner in handwriting comparison . By using this expression, the expressed by the document examiner in handwriting comparison . By using this expression, the examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that the questioned and known writings were not examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual.written by the same individual.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, Letters to the Editor, March 1991Journal of Forensic Sciences, Letters to the Editor, March 1991


What Can A Document What Can A Document Examiner Do?Examiner Do?

In addition to determining the In addition to determining the authenticity of handwriting and authenticity of handwriting and signatures on questioned documents, signatures on questioned documents, Document Examiners can identify the Document Examiners can identify the author of:author of:

* forged writing * anonymous disguised * forged writing * anonymous disguised writing * graffiti.writing * graffiti.

Document Examiners can determine:Document Examiners can determine: If the document has been altered in any If the document has been altered in any

way.way. Has information been removed from a Has information been removed from a

document?document? What has been removed?What has been removed? Have parts of the document been Have parts of the document been

obliterated?obliterated? What was written under cross-outs, black-What was written under cross-outs, black-

outs or white-outs?outs or white-outs? Has additional information been put on Has additional information been put on

the document?the document? Have pages been substituted:Have pages been substituted: The sequence of information written or The sequence of information written or

printed on a document.printed on a document. Which writing is on top when two Which writing is on top when two

signatures are intermingled?signatures are intermingled? How many different writers signed the How many different writers signed the

document?document?

What is earliest age that the document could have What is earliest age that the document could have been written?been written?

When was the watermark first manufactured?When was the watermark first manufactured? Has the paper been artificially aged by heat or by Has the paper been artificially aged by heat or by

chemicals?chemicals? What type of pen was used to create the What type of pen was used to create the

document?document? Was it in existence when the document was Was it in existence when the document was

purportedly written?purportedly written? What typewriter or printer was used to create a What typewriter or printer was used to create a

document?document? Was the same typewriter used to create certain Was the same typewriter used to create certain

documents?documents? Was the document created by a printer connected Was the document created by a printer connected

to a computer?to a computer? What type of printer? Daisy wheel? Dot Matrix? What type of printer? Daisy wheel? Dot Matrix?

Ink Jet? or Laser?Ink Jet? or Laser? Is a photocopy cut and paste?Is a photocopy cut and paste? Has a genuine signature been affixed by taking it Has a genuine signature been affixed by taking it

from a genuine document?from a genuine document? Has material been substituted on a page after it Has material been substituted on a page after it

was signed?was signed? Is the document counterfeit?Is the document counterfeit? Is a document a desktop forgery?Is a document a desktop forgery? Was the document scanned into a computer, Was the document scanned into a computer,

altered and printed?altered and printed? Other types of cases:Other types of cases: Embezzlement Embezzlement Medical Malpractice Medical Malpractice

Industrial Espionage Industrial Espionage Bigamy Bigamy Indented Writing CasesIndented Writing Cases


ADVANCED DOCUMENT & ADVANCED DOCUMENT & HANDWRITING EXAMINATION HANDWRITING EXAMINATION

SERVICES, LLCSERVICES, LLC

Linda JamesLinda James

would like towould like to

THANK YOUTHANK YOU

for attending her presentation for thefor attending her presentation for the

2007 Tarrant County Medical Examiners 2007 Tarrant County Medical Examiners SeminarSeminar

Please contact Linda at Please contact Linda at [email protected]@document-examiner.com

for any questions you may have.for any questions you may have.