Crystal writes:
"I have already said -
A copy is a copy
An original is an original
They are not comparable. One is derived from the other.
A document is not 2 dimensional. It is a 3 dimensional object. That applies whether it is an original, or a copy.
Nevertheless, a copy, however good, 'flattens' the images contained therein, obscuring detail which might otherwise be telling. A copy is not the same document, therefore, signs of its use, and of wear will be absent. "
Okay! Chris Lowe posted this snippet of an investigation that is very telling when it comes to the subject of photocopied signatures and document investigations. It is called ”Investigating forensic document examiners´skill relating to opinions on photocopied signatures”, and was published in ”Science and justice”, volume 45, No 4, 2005, p 199.
”Many forensic document examiners are hesitant to express authorship opinions on photocopied handwriting as the photocopying process results in less feature information than original writing. This study aimed to test the accuracy of 15 examiners´opinions regarding whether photocopied questioned signatures were genuine or simulated. Each examiner received the same set of eighty questioned photocopied signatures comprising of genuine and simulated signatures. The overall misleading (error) rate for the grouped examiners´opinion was 0,9 % providing strong evidence that examiners can make accurate observations regarding the authorship of non-original handwriting.”
Now, did I go to the authors and ”bombard” them until they sided with me? Nope – it was written five years ago.
Did I distort it? Nope – if it is distorted, it must be Chris´doing (sorry, Chris, but you will take the point...!)
And what does it tell us? It tells us that photocopied signatures are quite enough for the examiners to work with! Which is EXACTLY the point Sam has been pressing, while being castigated for doing so.
And please weigh in that this investigation dealt with genuine AND simulated handwriting, that is – forgery! Without seeing the originals, the examiners were able to pin 99,1 per cent of the origins. That is an almighty overweight.
And in our case, we are NOT dealing with a signature that is deliberately trying to look like another. Our case is much simpler.
The best, all!
Fisherman
"I have already said -
A copy is a copy
An original is an original
They are not comparable. One is derived from the other.
A document is not 2 dimensional. It is a 3 dimensional object. That applies whether it is an original, or a copy.
Nevertheless, a copy, however good, 'flattens' the images contained therein, obscuring detail which might otherwise be telling. A copy is not the same document, therefore, signs of its use, and of wear will be absent. "
Okay! Chris Lowe posted this snippet of an investigation that is very telling when it comes to the subject of photocopied signatures and document investigations. It is called ”Investigating forensic document examiners´skill relating to opinions on photocopied signatures”, and was published in ”Science and justice”, volume 45, No 4, 2005, p 199.
”Many forensic document examiners are hesitant to express authorship opinions on photocopied handwriting as the photocopying process results in less feature information than original writing. This study aimed to test the accuracy of 15 examiners´opinions regarding whether photocopied questioned signatures were genuine or simulated. Each examiner received the same set of eighty questioned photocopied signatures comprising of genuine and simulated signatures. The overall misleading (error) rate for the grouped examiners´opinion was 0,9 % providing strong evidence that examiners can make accurate observations regarding the authorship of non-original handwriting.”
Now, did I go to the authors and ”bombard” them until they sided with me? Nope – it was written five years ago.
Did I distort it? Nope – if it is distorted, it must be Chris´doing (sorry, Chris, but you will take the point...!)
And what does it tell us? It tells us that photocopied signatures are quite enough for the examiners to work with! Which is EXACTLY the point Sam has been pressing, while being castigated for doing so.
And please weigh in that this investigation dealt with genuine AND simulated handwriting, that is – forgery! Without seeing the originals, the examiners were able to pin 99,1 per cent of the origins. That is an almighty overweight.
And in our case, we are NOT dealing with a signature that is deliberately trying to look like another. Our case is much simpler.
The best, all!
Fisherman
Comment