Investigating forensic document examiners' skill relating
to opinions on photocopied signatures
Forensic Expertise Profiling Laboratory, School of Human Biosciences, La Trobe University,Victoria, 3086, Australia and Document Examination Team, Victoria
Police, Victoria Forensic Science Centre, Forensic Drive, Macleod. Victoria, 3085, Australia
Forensic Expertise Profiling Laboratory, Science of Human Bioasciences,La Trobe University,Victoria, 3086, Australia
Science & Justice 2005 45 199 - 206 Received 13 June 2003 Accepted 20 May 2005
Many forensic document examiners are hesitant to express author-
ship 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' opin-
ions regarding whether photocopied questioned signatures were
genuine or simulated. Each examiner received the same set of
original signature exemplars, from one individual, and a set of
eighty questioned photocopied signatures comprising of genuine
and simulated signatures. The overall misleading (error) rate for
the grouped examiners' opinions was 0.9% providing strong ev-
idence that examiners can make accurate observations regarding
the authorship of non-original handwriting.
Muchos investigadores forenses de documentos se muestran vac-
ilantes a la hora de expresar opiniones sobre escrituras fotocopi-
adas ya que el proceso de fotocopiado resulta en menor infor-
maci6n de 10s rasgos que el original. Este estudi6 se dirigi6 a
comprobar la exactitud de las opiniones de 15 examinadores so-
bre si unas firmas dubitadas eran genuinas o simuladas. Cada
examinador recibi6 un conjunto de ejemplares de firmas origi-
nales de un individuo y un conjunto de ochenta firmas dubitadas,
fotocopiadas, compuesto por firmas genuinas y simuladas. EL
resultado medio final para el grupo de examinadores fue de un
error del0.9% lo que prueba que se pueden hacer observaciones
exactas en cuanto a la auton'a de escritura no original.
Viele Experten fur forensische Schriftuntersuchungen zogem,
wenn sie Aussagen zur Urheberschaft eines fotokopierten
science&justice Volume 45 NO. 4 (2005) 199 - 206
B Found
DK Rogers'
Schriftzuges treffen sollen, da in diesem - bedingt durch
den Fotokopier-Prozess - verglichen mit der Original-
Schriftprobe weniger Merkmale erkennbar sind. Diese
Studie wurde durchgefiihrt, um die Genauigkeit von 15
Sachversttindigengutachten hinsichtlich ihrer Aussage zu
iiberpriifen, ob fotokopierte fragliche Unterschriften echt oder
gefalscht waren. Jeder der Gutachter erhielt den gleichen Satz
von Unterschriftsproben einer Person und einen Satz von 80
zu priifenden fotokopierten Signaturen, der aus echten und
nachgeahmten Proben bestand. Die Gesamtfehlerrate fur die
gruppierten Gutachten von 0,9% fuhrt zu dem Schluss, dass
die Sachverstandigen mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit zutreffende
Beobachtungen bzgl. der Urheberschaft von nicht im Original
vorliegenden Handschriften machen.
De nombreux spCcialistesforensiques en documents hCsitent i ex-
primer une opinion sur 1'identitC de I'auteur sur des Ccritures pho-
tocopiCes, vu que le processus de copie rCsulte en une diminution
de l'information. Cette Ctude vise il tester la justesse de l'opinion
de 15 spCcialistes i determiner si des signatures photocopiCes
contestees Ctaient authentiques ou simulCes. Chaque spkcialiste
a r e p le m&mejeu d'exemplaires de signatures originales d'un
individu et un jeu de 80 signatures contestkes photocopiCes com-
prenant des signatures authentiques et simulCes. Le taux d'erreur
total pour les opinions groupCes Ctait de 0.9 % montrant une forte
capacitk des spkcialistes i faire des observations correctes sur
l'identitk de I'auteur sur des Ccrits non originaux.
*Author for correspondence
O The Forensic Science Society 2005
Key words Forensic science, handwriting examination,
signatures, photocopy, validation, document examiners.
Page 199
B Found and DK Rogers
Examiner opinions on photocopied signatures
Introduction
Forensic document examiners (FDEs) are often confronted with
requests to compare writings from a known source (exemplars)
with questioned writings that are not the original handwritten
traces. Examples of non-original documents on which ques-
tioned handwritten images may appear include photographs, pho-
tocopies and facsimiles. From the outset of an examination of
non-original material, examiners accept that the visual informa-
tion extracted from the image may be different to that which is
retrievable from the original handwriting. Non-original images
are, to differing extents, filtered forms of original information.
Differing reproduction techniques and devices can result in dif-
ferences to the degree that the visual information is filtered and
the type of information that is ultimately extractable. The repro-
duction process may also result in distortions or additions to the
image.
Hilton, regarding the examination of non-original writing, wrote
that ". . . general handwriting can often be tentatively and some-
times be positively identified" and that this condition also holds
for signatures [I]. This author noted that "Some workers refuse
to examine all copies, but the practical examiner recognises that
it is necessary to rely on copies at times". Along similar lines
Ellen noted that "Although some of the detail will not be appar-
ent, in many examples of good quality photocopies there will
be adequate material for a useful comparison to be made" and
that "It is possible to identify photocopied writing as having been
made by a known writer" [2]. Morton presented a study on non-
original signatures and handwriting reproduced using seven plain
paper photocopiers [3]. The original images were produced using
combinations of four paper types and different writing imple-
ment classes (ballpoint, roller ball and fiber tip pens). This author
concluded that "most of the copiers reproduced the signatures,
genuine and forged, well enough for a fruitful examination".
All of the above authors, in spite of their views regarding issues
relating to the authorship of non-original writings, made a par-
ticular effort to highlight the major restriction when expressing
opinions regarding non-original writings. This was appropriately
summarised by the statement "Care must be taken to distinguish
between the writing and the document on which it appears to have
been written. The writing could be genuine but the document may
not. The photocopy could be a composite of two or more docu-
ments, and so the writing appears in a context different from that
in which it was written" [2]. In terms of reporting the results of
non-original handwriting examinations Huber and Headrick note
that "Findings must be so worded . . . that they clearly indicate
(1) The identification is of a writing on a document of which
the material at hand purports to be a trustworthy reproduction.
(2) The findings are subject to confirmation of their existence as
original writings, upon examination of the original document"
[41.
A detailed empirical study regarding experts' assessment of line
quality features associated with non-original signatures was pre-
sented by Dawson and Lindblom [5]. These authors investigated
the extent to which the photocopying process inhibits the ability
of experts to assess a variety of line quality features and whether
the non-original features impacted on the assessment of overall
Page 200
line quality. FDEs from a number of countries were surveyed
and provided comparative line quality feature assessments be-
tween non-original and corresponding original signature groups.
In all, 72 genuine and forged signatures were evaluated by the
examiner group (one questioned signature and 10 exemplars per
person). These authors found that the line quality characteristics
in 69 of 72 tests (95.8%) were accurately assessed in the photo-
copies which represented 33 of 35 (94.3%) genuine and 36 of 37
(97.3%) forged signatures. They found that although not all line
quality features were correctly identified by the examiners this
did not result in significant inaccuracies in the overall assessment
as evidenced by an accuracy rate of 95.8%.
Found et al. [6] compared the accuracy of examiners' opinions
on 260 original questioned signatures and on the same signa-
tures that had been photocopied. The study comprised two trials,
10 months apart. One trial contained originals of the exemplar
and questioned signatures and the other comprised photocopies
of the same exemplar and questioned signatures. All subjects un-
dertook the trial comprising photocopies first. It was found that
no errors regarding authorship were made for original or photo-
copied signatures, and there were no instances where an identi-
fication/elimination opinion was reversed between a photocopy
and its original. Only 2.3% of opinions relating to an original
signature differed in any way from that offered for its photocopy.
The high correct rates for questioned genuine signatures were
similar for original (100%) and photocopied signatures (98%).
The correct opinion rate regarding the process of production of
original and photocopied, simulated, questioned signatures com-
bined was 99.7%. The results provide evidence that examiners
are able to make comparisons on a complex signature with the
same accuracy and similar sensitivity when using either originals
or photocopies.
In this study we aimed to further investigate, and provide some
characterisation of, the skill of FDEs in providing authorship
opinions on non-original signatures.
Experimental method
Fifteen FDEs from six Australian and New Zealand government
forensic laboratories undertook the trial for this study. FDEs were
required to compare a group of exemplar signatures with non-
original questioned signatures where, for each of the questioned
signatures, the writer and writing process was known to the ex-
perimenters but not to the FDEs. Approval for this study was
obtained from the La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee
and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Materials
The trial material comprised a group of 18 original exemplar
signatures and a group of 80 questioned non-original signatures.
The original exemplar signatures comprised seven requested sig-
natures and 11 collected signatures, all written with a ballpoint
pen, taken from one individual. An example of one requested and
two collected exemplar signatures are shown in Figure 1.
The 80 questioned signatures comprised 16 non-original genuine
signatures and 64 simulated signatures. For the purposes of this
science&justice Volume 45 NO. 4 (2005) 200 - 206
 B Found and DK Rogers
Examiner opinions on photocopied signatures

Figure 1 Three of the exemplar signatures. Top signature
is an example of a requested signature and the
two bottom signatures were collected. All
signatures in this and following figures are
reproduced at the same magnification.
Figure 3 Signatures a 4 are questioned genuine
signatures for which misleading opinions were
given. The labels correspond to signatures a-d
of Table 6. The bottom right signature is an
exemplar signature; provided for ease of
com~arison.

study the term 'simulation' was defined as an attempt to copy, C.

draw or imitate a handwritten image, however the use of the term
did not directly imply whether or not the image was written by the
writer of the exemplars. The simulated signature group contained
29 'one-off' (no practice) signatures, 30 practised signatures and
five auto-simulations (the exemplar writer forging their own sig- d.
nature). These signatures were all written with a ballpoint pen, on
blank A4 paper, and subsequently serially photocopied twice on a
'Practice' simulations were chosen from the collected practices
Canon photocopier (Model No. GP405, resolution: 600 dpi). The
from each of the 15 simulators involved in the study. These simu-
questioned signatures were therefore second-generation copies of
lations were chosen jointly by the experimenters as representing
their original form. An example of a questioned genuine signature
what we subjectively believed were the best attempts by each of
and auto-simulation are shown in Figure 2. Further examples of
the simulators.
questioned genuine signatures are shown in Figure 3 and simu-
lated signatures in Figure 4.
'Auto-simulations' were simulations made by the exemplar writer
of their own signature. The exemplar writer was simply instructed
Preparation of the simulated signatures
to produce a signature where, at a later date, he could claim that
'One-off' simulations were prepared by 15 skilled writers chosen
it was forged.
from the academic staff at La Trobe University. Each simula-
tor was provided with three original examples of the signature
to be simulated. Simulators were instructed that only unassisted
simulations were to be (tracing or machine generated sim- Figure Questionedsimulatedsignatures for which
ulations were not allowed). They were provided with blank A4 misleading opinions were given. The labels
paper and a ball-point pen. Simulators were instructed to practise correspond to signatures 'e' and 'f' of Table 7.
the signature as many times as was practical over a one-week
-
period. Simulators were also provided with two 'official' doc-
uments (signed on the reverse by the experimenters) on which
they were to produce their 'one-off' simulations. Once the offi-
cial documents were signed they, and all practice attempts, were
collected by the experimenters.

Figure 2 Left: example of a questioned genuine signature.

Right: example of a questioned auto-simulation.

sciencetkjustice Volume 45 NO. 4 (2005) 201 - 206 Page 201

B Found and DK Rogers
Examiner opinions on photocopied signatures
All questioned signatures were compiled into a single booklet,
one signature per page.
Procedurefor obtaining FDEs' opinions
The booklet containing the questioned signatures, along with
the original signature exemplars were circulated, in turn, around
the participating FDEs. In addition, each participant received an
instruction sheet and answer booklet.
FDEs were told that all questioned signatures were non-original,
that it is to be assumed that the date range of the exemplar material
is appropriate to the questioned material and that each questioned
signature was simply a generation of photocopy taken from the
original signature.
FDEs were asked to express an opinion, for each of the 80 ques-
tioned signatures, as to whether they were genuine signatures
(written normally by the exemplar writer), simulations or whether
they were unable to say (inconclusive). The participants reported
their opinions using the multiple choice answer booklets. They
were instructed that opinions should not proceed through quality
assurance processes.
Analysis of FDEs' opinions
FDEs' opinion responses (opinion units) were marked as correct,
misleading or inconclusive. These marks were then analysed to
produce scores for the questioned signatures. The scores are pre-
sented as numbers of opinions or as percentages. The following
are definitions of the score categories used.
# Correct
The number of opinions that were correct.
#Misleading
The number of opinions that were misleading.
# Inconclusive
The number of opinions that were inconclusive.
% Correct
The number of correct opinions divided by the total number of
opinions (expressed as a percentage).
% Misleading
The number of misleading opinions divided by the total number
of opinions (expressed as a percentage).
% Inconclusive
The number of inconclusive opinions divided by the total number
of opinions (expressed as a percentage).
% Correct called
The number of correct opinions divided by the sum of the correct
and misleading opinions (expressed as a percentage).
% Misleading called
The number of misleading opinions divided by the sum of the
correct and misleading opinions (expressed as a percentage).
The 'called' scores do not include inconclusive opinions. They
equate to a number that reflects the opinion rate when an FDE was
prepared to express an opinion that was other than inconclusive.
Such positive opinions are likely to have greater impact than
inconclusive opinions in a casework setting and therefore the
called rates are arguably the rates with most significance for legal
determinations.
Page 202
Statistical tests involving the Mann-Whitney U test and the Spear-
man correlation coefficient were performed using the Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 10) to determine
whether there was a relationship between misleading opinions
and inconclusive opinions provided by examiners. These anal-
yses were performed for opinions on the full set of questioned
signatures, on genuine signatures considered alone and simu-
lated signatures alone. The Mann-Whitney U Test was used to
test whether there was a difference in the number of inconclusive
opinions given by examiners who gave misleading opinions com-
pared to examiners with no misleading opinions. An alpha level
of 0.05 was used, thus a significant difference between the two
groups of examiners was accepted if the two-tailed probability
@ value), determined from the U value, was less than 0.05. In
addition, Spearman's correlation coefficient ( p ) was calculated
to evaluate the correlation between FDEs' inconclusive rate and
their number of misleading opinions. The correlation was ac-
cepted as significant if the associated two-tailed p value was less
than 0.05.
Results
Fifteen FDEs provided an opinion for each of the 80 questioned
signatures (80 opinion units per subject) which resulted in 1200
opinion units for the group. Of these, there were 240 opinion units
for signatures which were in fact genuine and 960 opinion units
for signatures which were in fact simulations.
Grouped results
The opinion scores for the full group of 15 subjects on the ques-
tioned simulated and genuine signatures are shown in Table 1. As
can be observed, examiners provided an opinion that the ques-
tioned signatures were either genuine or simulated on 78% of
occasions (22% inconclusive opinions) with an overall mislead-
ing rate for the group being 1.2%. The data indicates higher
conservatism (inconclusive opinions) regarding the expression of
opinions associated with signatures that were in fact genuine than
for simulated signatures (inconclusive rates of 35.4 and 18.6% re-
spectively). There was also found to be a marked difference in
the percentage misleading of called rate between the genuine and
simulated signatures (5.2 and 0.4% respectively), reflecting pre-
vious findings [7-91 for comparisons using original signatures.
Table 2 provides the group correct, misleading and inconclusive
scores for each of the three types of questioned simulations (one-
off, practised and auto-simulations). As can be observed, only
three of the 960 opinions expressed by the group relating to ques-
tioned simulated signatures were misleading. This corresponds to
a misleading called rate of 0.3% for one-off simulations and 0.5%
for practised simulations. No errors were made regarding opin-
ions on auto-simulated signatures. The inconclusive rates across
all of the questioned signatures that were simulated was found to
be similar (between 17 and 20%). The slightly higher misleading
rate associated with practised signatures is not a surprising find-
ing given that simulators were able to refine their forging attempts
and that no cognitive stress was added to the task by having to sign
a 'one-off' attempt. If anything it is surprising that the misleading
and inconclusive rates for the one-off and practised groups are so
similar in magnitude.
science&justice Volume 45 NO. 4 (2005)202 - 206
 B Found and DK Rogers
Examiner opinions on photocopied signatures

Table 1 Opinion scores of FDE group for the questioned simulated and genuine signatures.

Simulated Genuine
Score type signatures signatures Total
# Correct 778 147
# Misleading 3 8
# lnconclusive 179 85
% Correct 81 .O 61.3
% Misleading 0.3 3.3
% lnconclusive 18.6 35.4
% Correct called 99.6 94.8
% Misleading called 0.4 5.2

Summary of individual subjects' opinions
A summary of individuals' correct, misleading and inconclusive
opinions is given in Table 3. Eight subjects expressed no erro-
neous opinions, four subjects expressed one misleading opinion,
two subjects expressed two misleading opinions and one subject
expressed three misleading opinions. The percentage mislead-
ing of called score for examiners ranged from 0.0 to 3.9%. The
percentage inconclusive rate varied widely from 1.3 to 75.0%.
For those examiners who made no errors the % inconclusive rate
varied from 11.3 to 75%. Examiners who made errors, had on av-
erage, fewer inconclusive opinions (mean = 9.6) than examiners
without error (mean = 24.6). A Mann-Whitney U Test indicated
that the difference was significant (U = 10.0, p = 0.037). This
effect was also reflected by a small but significant inverse cor-
relation between the number of errors examiners made and their
inconclusive rate (p = 0.60, p = 0.018).
In all, seven of the 15 examiners made at least one error. Six
individuals, of the 15 participating, were responsible for the eight
errors regarding questioned signatures that were genuine and two
individuals were responsible for the three errors regarding the
questioned signatures that were simulated.
Table 4 provides further information on the questioned genuine
signatures only. Further evidence of the difference between in-
dividuals can be observed from the variation in the inconclusive
rates (0.0-8 1.3% which represents between 0 and 13 inconclusive
opinions) and the misleading of called rate (M6.7%). Note that
because we are now reducing the number of individual opinions,
by dividing up the questioned opinion unit group, the percentage
scores given must be read taking into account the small number
of opinion units used in the percentage calculation. The mean
number of inconclusive opinions for examiners who made errors
was 3.7 and for examiners without error it was 7.0. The difference
failed to reach significance (U = 11.5, p = 0.066) probably due
to the reduced number of opinions. A trend towards an inverse cor-
relation between the number of errors examiners made and their
inconclusive rate was not significant (p = 0.414, p = 0.125).
Table 5 provides further information on the questioned simu-
lated signature group only. There were 64 simulated signatures
(29 one-off, 30 practised and five auto-simulations) in the ques-
tioned signature group. The difference between individuals in de-
termining whether a signature was produced using a simulation
process, can be observed from the variation in the inconclusive
rates (1.6 - 81.3% which represents between 0 and 52 incon-
clusive opinions). This inter-individual variation is particularly
interesting given that only two individuals of the 15 formed mis-
leading opinions. For those individuals not expressing misleading
opinions, the inconclusive rate also varied from 1.6 - 81.3%.
Again it should be noted that these percentages must be read tak-
ing into consideration that only small amounts of data are being
used for individual percentage calculations. The small number of
misleading opinions precludes the demonstration of a significant
relationship between error and inconclusive rate.
Observations regarding the signatures where
misleading opinions were expressed
The errors made by the examiners were made on only six of the 80
questioned signatures. The eight misleading opinions on genuine

Table 2 Opinion scores of FDE group for the questioned simulation types.

One-off Practised Auto-

Score type simulations simulations simulations
# Correct
# Misleading
# lnconclusive
% Correct
% Misleading
% lnconclusive
% Correct called
% Misleading called

science&justice Volume 45 No. 4 (2005) 203 - 206 Page 203

B Found and DK Rogers
Examiner opinions on photocopied signatures

Table 3 Scores for individual FDEs' opinions regarding the group of questioned signatures.

Subject # Correct # Misleading # Inc. % Correct % Misleading % Inc. % Correct called % Misleading called
1 71 0 9 88.8 0.0 11.3 100.0 0.0
2 50 0 30 62.5 0.0 37.5 100.0 0.0
3 74 3 3 92.5 3.8 3.8 96.1 3.9
4 20 0 60 25.0 0.0 75.0 100.0 0.0
5 58 1 21 72.5 1.3 26.3 98.3 1.7
6 69 0 11 86.3 0.0 13.8 100.0 0.0
7 77 2 1 96.3 2.5 1.3 97.5 2.5
8 71 1 8 88.8 1.3 10.0 98.6 1.4
9 75 1 4 93.8 1.3 5.0 98.7 1.3
10 70 0 10 87.5 0.0 12.5 100.0 0.0
11 47 0 33 58.8 0.0 41.3 100.0 0.0
12 56 0 24 70.0 0.0 30.0 100.0 0.0
13 61 2 17 76.3 2.5 21.3 96.8 3.2
14 60 0 20 75.0 0.0 25.0 100.0 0.0
15 66 1 13 82.5 1.3 16.3 98.5 1.5

signatures related to the four questioned signatures shown in Fig-
ure 3 and the three misleading opinions on simulated signatures
related to the two questioned signatures shown in Figure 4. Table
6 provides the raw opinion data for all response types for each
of the questioned genuine signatures where misleading opinions
were expressed. Table 7 provides the raw opinion data for all
response types for each of the questioned simulated signatures
where misleading opinions were expressed. The data of the two
tables provides additional information regarding the likely na-
ture of the errors being made. For example, it is clear that for
signature 'b' all examiners, other than the one registering a mis-
leading response, expressed inconclusive opinions. It could be
argued therefore that signature 'b' must have displayed feature
characteristics such that it could neither be confidently grouped
as either genuine or simulated. Likewise for signature 'c' the
vast majority of examiners expressed the correct opinion and
only one examiner expressed a misleading opinion. Clearly this
is either a transcription error on the part of the examiner or a, pre-
sumably, correctable error in perception. Signature 'd' exhibits
a mixed response. This signature must have contained feature
characteristics that supported both the simulation and genuine
propositions.
It is clear from Table 7 that for signature 'e' most examiners
were either inconclusive or expressed the correct opinion that
the signature was simulated. Clearly, in the case where one mis-
leading opinion is recorded, the response is either a transcription
error on the part of the examiner or a, presumably, correctable er-
ror in perception. Signature 'f' presents a more mixed picture and
must display features that support both the genuine and simulated
propositions.
Discussion
This study provides substantial support for the proposition
that FDEs, taken over the group, possess skills at determining
whether photocopied signatures were genuine signatures (written

Table 4 Scores for individuals' opinions on questioned genuine signatures only.

Subject # Correct # Misleading # Inc. O h Correct % Misleading % Inc. % Correct called % Misleading called
1 8 0 8 50 0 50 100 0
2 12 0 4 75 0 25 100 0
3 13 1 2 81.3 6.3 12.5 92.9 7.1
4 8 0 8 50 0 50 100 0
5 13 1 2 81.3 6.3 12.5 92.9 7.1
6 7 0 9 43.8 0 56.3 100 0
7 14 2 0 87.5 12.5 0 87.5 12.5
8 14 1 1 87.5 6.3 6.3 93.3 6.7
9 11 1 4 68.8 6.3 25 91.7 8.3
10 9 0 7 56.3 0 43.8 100 0
11 8 0 8 50 0 50 100 0
12 10 0 6 62.5 0 37.5 100 0
13 1 2 13 6.3 12.5 81.3 33.3 66.7
14 5 0 11 31.3 0 68.8 100 0
15 14 0 2 87.5 0 12.5 100 0

Page 204 science&justice Volume 45 No. 4 (2005) 204 - 206

 B Found and DK Rogers
Examiner opinions on photocopied signatures

Table 5 Scores for individuals' opinions on questioned simulated signatures only.

Subject # Correct # Misleading # Inc. % Correct % Misleading % Inc. % Correct called % Misleading called

normally by the writer of the exemplars) or were the product of
a simulation process. The misleading scores recorded are low in
spite of the images under examination bearing filtered informa-
tion in comparison to their source images. This study provides
further empirical data to that already presented by Dawson and
Lindblom [l] and Found et al. [6], that examiners can translate
observations regarding non-original line quality features and ad-
dress whether they are consistent with a genuine writing act or an
act of simulation.
The overall average inconclusive rate for the group (22%) may
appear to be high. It is not possible to tell whether this was
due to the nature of the exemplar and questioned signatures
used or was related to the fact that the questioned signatures
were photocopied. It is possible that the photocopying process
reduces the confidence of some examiners, perhaps due to reduc-
tion in features evident in the original exemplars. However, in
a previous study [6], considered in the Introduction, there was
no difference between opinions on original signatures and their
photocopies.
A striking feature of the current study was the marked inter-
examiner variation in the inconclusive rate. It is interesting that
this variation translates to an opinion profile for the examiner
group where, over all questioned signatures, the % correct called
approaches 100 and the % misleading called approaches zero.
However, there was a significant tendency for a greater number
of examiner errors to be associated with a lower inconclusive rate
and examiners who made no errors had, on average, higher in-
conclusive rates than examiners who gave misleading opinions. It
appears logical, and appropriate, that individual examiners were
using the inconclusive opinion option to avoid expressing mis-
leading opinions.
It was not the purpose of this study to pursue the issue of ex-
aminer expertise, that is, whether the skill of FDEs is signifi-
cantly greater than that of lay people. Previous studies on sig-
nature comparison with original signatures [7-91 have demon-
strated such expertise. In the three studies, the error rates were
markedly and statistically lower for FDEs than for lay subjects.
It was observed that the higher error rates for the lay sub-
jects were due to them providing significantly fewer inconclu-
sive opinions than the FDEs. This suggests that an element of
examiners' expertise relates to their conservatism, reflecting an
acceptance of the examination technique's limitations. As with
many techniques, forensic signature comparison has limitations

Table 6 Correct, misleading and inconclusive opinion

spread for those genuine signatures where one
or more individuals misleadingly called the Table 7 Correct, misleading and inconclusive opinion
signature simulated. spread for those simulated signatures where one
or more individuals misleadingly called the
Number Number of Number of signature genuine.
of correct misleading inconclusive
Signature responses responses responses Number of Number of Number of
correct misleading inconclusive
a 1 3 11
Signature responses responses responses
b 0 1 14
C 11 1 3 e 8 1 6
d 5 3 7 f 4 2 9

science&justice Volume 45 No. 4 (2005) 205 - 206 Page 205

B Found and DK Rogers
Examiner opinions o n photocopied signatures
and a component of expertise is the ability to recognise the
limitations.
Despite the comments above, the marked inter-examiner vari-
ation in the inconclusive rate suggests that examiners' percep-
tions regarding their ability to confidently express opinions on
non-original handwriting are not uniform. In addition, examiner
skill reflected in low or absent misleading opinions coupled with
a low inconclusive rate is greater for some FDEs than others.
These observations suggest that although the characterisation of
examiner group perceptions is important, it is the nature of indi-
vidual misleading opinion and inconclusive opinion scores that
provides relevant characterisation of the claimed skill of FDEs.
We consider it is imperative that individual skills are appropri-
ately characterised, as described for example in [lo], because it
is through the medium of these skills that opinions are expressed
to the FDE client group.
Acknowledgments
This work received sponsorship from the National Institute
of Forensic Science, Australia. We are grateful to the ex-
aminers who participated in this study and their employing
organisations.
Page 206
References
1 Hilton 0. Scientific Examinationof Questioned Documents. New York: Elsevier, 1982.
2 Ellen D. The Scientific Examination of Documents: Methods and Techniques. West
Sussex: Ellis Horwood, 1989.
3 Morton SE. A look at newer photocopiers. Journal of Forensic Sciences 1989; 34:
461-467.
4 Huber RA and Headrick AM. Handwriting Identification: Facts and Fundamentals.
Boca Raton: CRC, 1999.
5 Dawson GA and Lindblom BS. An evaluationof line quality in photocopiedsignatures.
Science and Justice 1998; 38: 189-194.
6 Found B, Rogers D, and HerM A. Comparison of document examiners' opinions on
originaland photocopiedsignatures.Journal of Forensic DocumentExamination 2001;
14: 1-13.
7 Found B, Sita J, and Rogers D. The development of a program for characterising
forensic handwriting examiners' expertise: Signature examination pilot study. Journal
of Forensic Document Examination 1999; 12: 69-80.
8 Kam M, GummadidalaK, FieldingG, and Conn R. Signatureauthentication by forensic
document examiners. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2001; 46: 884-888.
9 Sita J, Found B, and Rogers DK. Forensic handwriting examiners' expertise for sig-
nature comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences 2002; 47: 1117-1 124.
10 Found B and Rogers D. The initial profiling trial of a program to characterize forensic
handwriting examiners' skill. Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document
Examiners 2003; 6: 72-81.
science&justice Volume 45 NO. 4 (2005) 206 - 206