Welcome to the Tarrant County Medical Examiners Seminar

1
Welcome to the Tarrant County Medical Examiners
Seminar

• December 2007
• LINDA JAMES, B.C.D.E., Diplomate

2
Linda James, B.C.D.E., DiplomateStatement of
Qualifications

• EDUCATION TRAINING
• National Association of Document Examiners
  Board Certified Document Examiner, Re-certified
  01/01/06
• National Questioned Document Association
  Forensic Document Examination Course, 264 Study
  Hours
• Apprenticeship/Hands-on Internship
  Microscopes/Photography/Court Exhibits/Fax
  Machines/Printers/Copiers Typewriter/Ink
  Pens/Paper/Document Cases/Court/Procedures/Prepara
  tion/Testifying, over 200 Technical Hours
• National Questioned Document Association
  Certified Document Examiner, 315 Study Hours.
• College Notre-Dame-de-Foy, Canada Introduction
  to Document Examination Equipmen/45 Hrs/3 College
  Credits
• American Institute of Applied Science Police
  Photography, Questioned Documents
• American Institute of Applied Science Forensic
  Science, 230 Study Hours/6 College
  Credits/Burlington County
• North Central Texas Council of Governments
  Regional Police Academy Basic Instructor Course,
  40 Hours
• Total of 23 College Credits Earned and Applied
  Toward an Associate Degree in Criminal Justice
• INSTRUCTOR
• State Licensed Instructor, Texas Commission on
  Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education
• Texas Board of Private Investigators and
  Private Security Agencies/Association of
  Certified Fraud Examiners
• First Instructor/National Questioned Document
  Association Document Examination Course, 1992 -
  1997
• GIVEN AUTHORIZATION TO USE COURSE MATERIALS FOR
  INSTRUCTION
• American Institute of Applied Science/Questioned
  Document Section
• PUBLICATIONS
• 2001 National Association of Document Examiner
  Journal/Examination of Faxed Documents
• 1999 National Association of Document Examiner
  Journal/Document Manipulation

3
Linda James, B.C.D.E., DiplomateStatement of
Qualifications

• OPINIONS GIVEN ON THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF CASES
• Ink and Paper/Recovered Hidden Writing
  Death Threats/Famous signatures on
  paintings/books
• Disputed Wills/Lease Agreements
  Self-inking Stamped Impressions
• Forged Signatures/Contracts/Checks
  Typewriter - Alteration/Additions
• Dating Documents, Photo Copies Medical
  Records Documents/Indented writing
• Stolen Credit Cards/Falsified Identity Cards
  Falsified Annuity Claims/Sequential Writing
• International Case Involving Kidnapping
  Birth Certificates/Immigration Documents
• Capital Murder Cases/Alleged Rape Cases
  Bank Signature Cards/Embezzlement/Diary Entries
• Falsified Life Insurance Forms/Traced Signatures
  Falsified Land Title Company Forms/Divorce
  Papers
• Stock Certificates/ Mail Fraud/Election Ballots
  Altered College Records/Tests/Holographic
  Wills
• Threatening Notes/Anonymous Notes Laser
  Printing Removal/Toner Anchorage
• Bankruptcy/IRS Documents/Warranty Deeds
  Bank Security Agreements/Miranda Rights
• Adoption Papers/Disguised Writing Stolen
  U. S. Treasury Checks/Corporate Minutes
• APPOINTMENTS
• 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 Supervisor/Prescott College/Master of
  Arts Program.
• PROFICIENCY TESTING
• 2005/3006/2007 Collaborative Testing Services,
  Inc. (Handwriting and Document Examination)

4
Linda James, B.C.D.E., DiplomateStatement of
Qualifications

• PRESENTATIONS
• 2007 Instruments Employed by Document Examiners
  TCDLA 5th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX
  
• 2007 A Forensic Look At Medical Records AORN
  (Association of Peri Operative Registered Nurse),
  Plano, TX
• 2007 Principles in Forensic Document
  Examinations TALIs Super Conference Irving, TX
  
• 2007 Identifying Graphic Patterns in
  Signatures-Poster Presentation Annual NADE
  Conference, Tucson , AZ
• 2006 What Can a Document Examiner Do? TCDLA
  4th Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX
  
• 2006 Taking Proper Request Writing Samples
  TALIs Southwest Super Conference San Antonio, TX
  
• 2006 The Field of Forensic Document Examination
  North Texas University Forensic Science Club
  Denton
• 2006 Forensic Document Examiners Lab and Cases
  - Forensic Science Class - Austin College,
  Sherman, TX
• 2005 Cross Examining the Document Examiner
  TCDLA 3rd Annual Forensics Seminar, Dallas TX
  
• 2005 President Bush National Guard Documents
  and CBS, N.A.D.E., Quebec, Canada
• 2005 Business Contract or Employment Workers
  for the Document Examiner, N.A.D.E., Quebec,
  Canada
• 2004 What is a Forensic Document Examiner?
  Plano Kiwanis Club, Plano, Texas
• 2004 Science and Crime - Forensic Science Class
  - Austin College, Sherman, TX
• 2004 Forensic Document Examination in the 21st
  Century - TCDLA 2nd Annual Forensics Seminar,
  Plano, TX
• 2003 Forensic Document Handwriting
  Examinations - Forensic Science Class - Austin
  College, Sherman, TX
• 2002 What is a Forensic Document Examiner?
  Rotary Club - Arlington Division
• 2001 Forensic Document Examination, AICPA
  National Conference, Dallas, Texas
• 2001 Unique Cases and Their Solutions,
  Insurance Fraud Education Conference, Orlando,
  Florida

5
Linda James, B.C.D.E., DiplomateStatement of
Qualifications

• CONTINUING EDUCATION
• 2007 TCDLA 5th Annual Forensics Seminar,
  Dallas TX
• 2007 Association of Forensic Document Examiners
  Symposium, Tucson, AZ
• 2007 National Association of Document
  Examiners Conference, Tucson , AZ
• 2006 FIAT/IAFCI 2nd Annual Conference,
  Galveston, Texas
• 2006 69th Annual Conference of the Texas
  Division of the International Association for
  Identification
• 2006 National Association of Document Examiners
  Conference, at Sea
• 2005 National Association of Document Examiners
  Conference, Quebec, Canada
• 2004 FIAT Annual Conference TCLEOSE/Austin
  Police Department, Austin, Texas
• 2004 National Association of Document Examiners
  Conference, Anaheim, California
• 2004 American Academy of Forensic Sciences
  Dallas, Texas
• 2003 National Questioned Document Association,
  New Orleans, Louisiana
• 2003 Cyber Crime and Terrorism, MetroPlex 2003,
  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 National Association of Document Examiners
  Conference, Crawley, England
• 2001 National Questioned Document Association
  Educational Conference, Dallas, Texas
• 2000 National Association of Document Examiners
  Conference, Albuquerque, New Mexico
• 2000 National Questioned Document Association
  Educational Conference, Dallas, Texas

6
Linda James, B.C.D.E., DiplomateStatement of
Qualifications

• COURT EXPERIENCE 1994 through 2007
• Qualified under the Daubert/duPont
  guideline/Opinions Judicially accepted and
  admitted
• 2007 Texas Workforce Commission2002 Allen
  County in Fort Wayne, Indiana
• 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 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 114th Smith County District Court, Texas,
  D.A. 2001 27th St. Landry Parish, Louisiana
  (DA)
• 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 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 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
  
• 2006297th Tarrant County Judicial District
  Court, TX2001 116th Dallas County District
  Court, Texas
• 2006 8th Judicial District Court/Colfax -
  Raton, NM2001 19th East Baton Rouge Parish,
  Louisiana
• 2005 422nd District of Kaufman County, TX2000
  State Bar of Texas
• 2005 366th Judicial District Court, Collin
  County, TX2000 Singapore Subordinate Criminal
  Court
• 2005 Workers Compensation CCH, Mt. Pleasant,
  TX2000 67th Tarrant County District Court,
  Texas

7
OBJECTIVES

• Handwriting Examination vs. Right to Privacy
• Legal Status of Handwriting Evaluation
• Handwriting is Brain Writing
• The types of Non-Destructive Testing of Documents
• Empirically testing the hypothesis
• Four things that contribute to a reliable
  conclusion
• Specialized training

8
Handwriting Examination vs. Right to Privacy

• The legality of handwriting analysis has been
  established in court decisions within the past
  ten years, relating to the national labor
  relations act, the equal employment opportunity
  commission and the Privacy Act of 1974.
• Handwriting is behavior in public and therefore
  (handwriting 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 U.S. vs.
  Hazelwood School District, 534 F2ND 805 (CA 8TH
  MO 1976
• The university of California researched
  precedents where handwriting analysis has been
  used in courts throughout the nation as far back
  as 1881. some of this research can be found in
  American Law Reports Annotated (103 A.L.R. Pages
  900-901)

9
Legal Status of Handwriting Evaluation

• Handwriting examination has overcome challenges
  under 2 U.S. Constitutional Amendments (4th and
  5th Amendments)
• 4th Amendment Rulings
• U.S. vs. DOE (Handwriting is considered under
  property relationships re public view
• U.S. vs. Katz (Handwriting has no protection for
  what a person knowingly exposes to the public)
• U.S. vs. Mara -1973 (Handwriting is considered
  under property relationships re public view)
• U.S. vs. Sydney W. Rosinsky -1977 (Handwriting
  considered under property relationships re public
  view)
• 5th Amendment Rulings
• California vs. Gilbert -1967 (Production of
  handwriting exemplars)
• U.S. vs. Dianisio -1973 (Production of
  handwriting exemplars)

10
Handwriting is Brain Writing

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

11
The types of Non-Destructive Testing of Documents

• Combination of low magnification, examination
  through colored filters to enhance contrast
• High contrast photography
• Infra-red and infra-red luminescence examination
  using a video spectral comparator device to
  enhance the image
• An examination of the indentations caused by the
  writing instrument using low angle, or oblique
  light techniques, or ESDA

12
The types of Non-Destructive Testing of Documents
cont.

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

13
Empirically testing the hypothesis

• Webster defines scientific method as the
  following
• Principles and procedures for the systematic
  pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition
  and formulation of a problem, the collection of
  data through observation and experiment, and the
  formulation and testing of hypotheses.
• Websters New Encyclopedia Dictionary (New York
  B.D. L. 1994)

14
Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.

• Pose a question
• Collect evidence
• Hypothesize
• Deduce its implications
• Test them experimentally
• Accept, reject, or modify the hypothesis

15
Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.

• It has been written that what distinguishes
  scientific knowledge from other knowledge is
• the method by which it is created or collected
• a systematic extension of common sense and
• sound skepticism, that when combined, is referred
  to as scientific method.
• District judge D. I. McKenna, in his recent
  decision in U.S. vs. Roberta and Eileen
  Starzecpyzel, 880 Fed. Sup. 1027, April 4, 1995,
  quotes the words of Green in Expert Witness and
  Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances
  Litigation, 86 N. WU. L. Rev. 643, 645 (1992),
  who states
• Scientific methodology today is based on
  generating hypotheses and testing them to see if
  they can be falsified indeed, this methodology
  is what distinguished science from other fields
  of human inquiry.

16
Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.

• Sample case 1st examination
• REQUEST
• The question posed was whether or not the
  original document dated in July of 1992 was
  produced in 1992.
• The document was made available for examination.
• Hypothesize the alleged document was produced in
  1992.
• EXAMINATION CONDUCTED
• Copies were made on yellow paper of the subject
  document and the 1992 known documents in order to
  take contemporary notes.
• Examinations were made by employing the
  stereoscopic microscope, light box,
  transparencies, ESDA, MiScope, and
  microphotography.
• CONTEMPORARY NOTES
• The typewriting that was printed on the subject
  document was by a laser printer.
• The typewriting that was printed on the
  contemporary 1992 known documents was by a laser
  printer.
• Consistent stray dots were present on the
  document indicating a nick in the drum.
• The same pattern of stray dots were not found on
  other known original July of 1992 documents to
  the subject document.
• CONCLUSION
• The document may not have been produced in 1992.
  Proceed to the next examination.

17
Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.

• Sample case 2nd examination
• REQUEST
• The question posed was whether or not the
  original document dated in July of 1992 was
  produced in 1993.
• The document was made available for examination.
• Hypothesize the alleged document was produced in
  1993.
• EXAMINATION CONDUCTED
• Copies were made on pastel green paper of the
  subject document and the 1993 known documents in
  order to take contemporary notes.
• Examinations were made by employing the
  stereoscopic microscope, light box,
  transparencies, ESDA, MiScope, and
  microphotography.
• CONTEMPORARY NOTES
• The typewriting that was printed on the subject
  document was by a laser printer.
• The typewriting that was printed on the
  contemporary 1993 known documents was by a laser
  printer.
• 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
  documents.
• CONCLUSION
• The document may not have been produced in 1993.
  Proceed to the next examination.

18
Empirically testing the hypothesis cont.

• Sample case 3rd examination
• REQUEST
• The question posed was whether or not the
  original document dated in July of 1992 was
  produced in 1994.
• The document was made available for examination.
• Hypothesize the alleged document was produced in
  1994.
• EXAMINATION CONDUCTED
• Copies were made on pastel blue paper of the
  subject document and the 1994 known documents in
  order to take contemporary notes.
• Examinations were made by employing the
  stereoscopic microscope, light box,
  transparencies, ESDA, MiScope, and
  microphotography.
• CONTEMPORARY NOTES
• The typewriting that was printed on the subject
  document was by a laser printer.
• The typewriting that was printed on the
  contemporary 1994 known documents was by a laser
  printer.
• The consistent stray dots that were present on
  the 1992 document, indicating a nick in the drum,
  were found on the 1994 known original documents.
• CONCLUSION
• The document was produced in 1994.
• Question answered.

19
Four things that contribute to a reliable
conclusion

• The following four things contribute to a
  reliable conclusion for an experts opinion in
  forensic document examination
• Physical observations are accurately and
  objectively demonstrated.
• The explanation of scientific theories is
  reasonable and based on proper theory and
  objective sources.
• Crisp and impeccable logic is applied.
• Precise definitions of terminology are used.

20
Specialized training

• No college degree available at this time
• Only a certification for this field
• State approved curriculum
• Continuing education
• Misleading information about schools
• Certifying Bodies

21
Best Evidence

• We are allowed to use best evidence when the
  original is not available.
• Best Evidence
• Primary evidence, as distinguished from
  secondary original, as distinguished 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 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 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
  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. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th
  Edition
• Best Evidence Rule
• 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 rule prohibits
  the introduction into evidence of secondary
  evidence unless it is 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 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 prove the content of a writing,
  recording, or photograph, the original writing,
  recording, or photograph, is required, except as
  otherwise provided in these rules or by Act of
  Congress. ibid

22
Best Evidence

• Primary Evidence
• Primary evidence means original or first hand
  evidence the best evidence that the nature of
  the case admits of the evidence which is
  required in the first instance, and which must
  fail before secondary evidence can be admitted.
  That evidence which the nature of the case or
  question suggests as the proper means of
  ascertaining the truth. It is the particular
  means of proof which is the most natural and
  satisfactory of which the case admits, and
  includes the best evidence which is available to
  a party and procurable under the existing
  situation, and all evidence falling short of such
  standard, and which in its nature suggest there
  is better evidence of the same fact, is
  secondary evidence. ibid
• Secondary Evidence
• That which is inferior to primary or best
  evidence. Thus, a copy of an instrument, or oral
  evidence of its contents, is secondary evidence
  of the instrument and contents. It is that
  species of evidence which becomes admissible,
  when the primary or best 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 destroyed. ibid

23
HANDWRITING OPINION TERMINOLOGY

• identification (definite conclusion of
  identity)-This is the highest degree of
  confidence expressed by document examiners in
  handwriting comparisons.
• strong probability (highly probable, very
  probable)-The evidence is very persuasive, yet
  some 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 individual.
• probable-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 "virtually certain" degree of confidence.
• indications (evidence to suggest)-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 writing.
• no conclusion (totally inconclusive,
  indeterminable)-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 known writing or a lack
  of comparable writing, and the examiner - does
  not have even a leaning one way or another.
• indications did not-This carries the same weight
  as the indications term above that is, it is a
  very weak opinion.
• probably did not-The evidence points rather
  strongly against the questioned and known
  writings having been written by the same
  individual, but, as in the probable range above,
  the evidence is not quite up to the virtually
  certain range quite.
• strong probability did not (highly probable did
  not, very probable did not) -This carries the
  same weight as strong probability 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.
• elimination-This, 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
  examiner denotes no doubt in his opinion that the
  questioned and known writings were not written by
  the same individual.
• Journal of Forensic Sciences, Letters to the
  Editor, March 1991

24
What Can A Document Examiner Do?

• In addition to determining the authenticity of
  handwriting and signatures on questioned
  documents, Document Examiners can identify the
  author of
• forged writing anonymous disguised writing
  graffiti.
• Document Examiners can determine
• If the document has been altered in any way.
• Has information been removed from a document?
• What has been removed?
• Have parts of the document been obliterated?
• What was written under cross-outs, black-outs or
  white-outs?
• Has additional information been put on the
  document?
• Have pages been substituted
• The sequence of information written or printed on
  a document.
• Which writing is on top when two signatures are
  intermingled?
• How many different writers signed the document?

• What is earliest age that the document could have
  been written?
• When was the watermark first manufactured?
• Has the paper been artificially aged by heat or
  by chemicals?
• What type of pen was used to create the document?
• Was it in existence when the document was
  purportedly written?
• What typewriter or printer was used to create a
  document?
• Was the same typewriter used to create certain
  documents?
• Was the document created by a printer connected
  to a computer?
• What type of printer? Daisy wheel? Dot Matrix?
  Ink Jet? or Laser?
• Is a photocopy cut and paste?
• Has a genuine signature been affixed by taking it
  from a genuine document?
• Has material been substituted on a page after it
  was signed?
• Is the document counterfeit?
• Is a document a desktop forgery?
• Was the document scanned into a computer, altered
  and printed?
• Other types of cases
• Embezzlement ? Medical Malpractice ?
  Industrial Espionage ? Bigamy
• Indented Writing Cases

25
ADVANCED DOCUMENT HANDWRITING EXAMINATION
SERVICES, LLC

• Linda James
• would like to
• THANK YOU
• for attending her presentation for the
• 2007 Tarrant County Medical Examiners Seminar
• Please contact Linda at lcj_at_document-examiner.com
• for any questions you may have.