El legado del Dr. Bryan Found



bryan_foundEl Dr. Bryan Found, director de “Signature & Handwriting Forensics” asesora científicamente a practicantes de la ley y gente afín al mundo jurídico en Australia y en el extranjero. El Dr. Found es licenciado en ciencias (fisiología y bioquímica), posgrad en Educación (biología y química), posgrado en Neurociencias y doctor en filosofía con la tesis “The Forensic Analysis of Behavioural Artefacts: Methodological and Analytical Approaches to Forensic Handwriting Science”.

El Dr.Bryan Found es un líder internacional en el campo forense en cuanto a firmas, cotejo de escrituras e identificación. Frecuentemente es invitado a participar en seminarios, congresos y workshops en relación a estas materias en Australia, Nueva Zelanda, EEUU y Europa. Ha servido a magistrados, jueces y “Supreme Courts of Victoria” desde que comenzó su carrera como investigador forense de documentos en 1987.

Tiene competencia en todos los ámbitos del análisis forense de documentos, es ex-jefe de la formación en análisis forense de doumentos de la policía y actualmente es investigador principal y jefe de la “Forensic Expertise Profiling Labratory, Handwriting Analysis and Research Laboratory, School of Human Biosciences” en la universidad La Trobe en Melbourne (Victoria) Australia.

El Dr. Found asiste y aconseja a empresas, departamentos de gobierno y miembros de la comunidad jurídica y legal. 

Este es el legado en forma de valiosas investigaciones publicaciones en diferentes revistas – “Journal”- y capítulos de libros:


researchgate1. Dewhurst, T., Ballantyne, K. and Found, B. (2016). Empirical investigation of biometric, non-visible, intra-signature features in known and simulated signatures. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48(6), pp.659-675.


With the continued proliferation of electronic point of transaction signature recording devices, research into biometric indicators of spurious handwriting is attracting increasing interest. Whilst many investigations have focused on the static and dynamic indications of known or spurious behaviour in handwriting, little empirical research is available regarding the identification of such writings through the analysis and comparison of non-visible, intra-signature, kinematic parameters. These features are associated with segments within a signature formation where the pen is momentarily lifted from the page, such as might occur between a first and last name, or when the pen is lifted from the page for the purpose of crossing a ‘t’ or dotting an ‘i’. It is postulated that this type of feature analysis may be of value in support of examiners’ static examinations of disputed writings, and subsequent formation of opinion as to genuineness or otherwise. To investigate this, 13 skilled writers generated 195 known signature formations, which were then simulated 1560 times by eight simulators. All signatures, known and simulated, were simultaneously captured both statically and dynamically. The presence of non-visible features in the known signatures was recorded, analysed and compared with the prevalence of similar features in the simulation attempts. The duration, absolute size, straightness error and jerk (disfluency measure) of the extracted segments were examined and compared, with the result that simulated signatures showed an increase in all the above parameters, compared with the known signatures. Furthermore, the visualised representation of the non-visible, intra-signature segments illustrated an overall gross pictorial disparity between the known and simulated signatures, which may be of use during first pass authenticity examinations

researchgate2. Mohammed, L., Found, B., Caligiuri, M. and Rogers, D. (2014). Dynamic Characteristics of Signatures: Effects of Writer Style on Genuine and Simulated Signatures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(1), pp.89-94.


The aims of this study were to determine if computer-measured dynamic features (duration, size, velocity, jerk, and pen pressure) differ between genuine and simulated signatures. Sixty subjects (3 equal groups of 3 signature styles) each provided 10 naturally written (genuine) signatures. Each of these subjects then provided 15 simulations of each of three model signatures. The genuine (N = 600) and simulated (N = 2700) signatures were collected using a digitizing tablet. MovAlyzeR® software was used to estimate kinematic parameters for each pen stroke. Stroke duration, velocity, and pen pressure were found to discriminate between genuine and simulated signatures regardless of the simulator’s own style of signature or the style of signature being simulated. However, there was a significant interaction between style and condition for size and jerk (a measure of smoothness). The results of this study, based on quantitative analysis and dynamic handwriting features, indicate that the style of the simulator’s own signature and the style of signature being simulated can impact the characteristics of handwriting movements for simulations. Writer style characteristics might therefore need to be taken into consideration as potentially significant when evaluating signature features with a view to forming opinions regarding authenticity.

researchgate-13. Found, B. and Ganas, J. (2013). The management of domain irrelevant context information in forensic handwriting examination casework. Science & Justice, 53(2), pp.154-158.


That domain irrelevant context information can potentially bias human decision making processes is accepted in the psychological sciences. Although many forensic pattern examination sciences use human perceptual and cognitive processes almost exclusively to form opinions regarding evidence, we have been slow to engage with any procedure that might control for any potential effects associated with context information. The critics of pattern evidence have described how opinions may be unintentionally incorrectly formed and how bodies of evidential information might conspire to form cases where the sum of the totality of the evidence may be significantly more than its specialist parts. Given the body of evidence supporting the potentially serious implications of domain irrelevant information, it was decided to introduce a context management scheme at the Document Examination Unit of the Victoria Police Forensic Services Department. Existing laboratory wide evidence submission procedures were modified in the scheme such that, as far as was agreed to be practical, all handwriting cases were stripped of all but essential information for carrying out examination and comparison tasks. As yet no negative outcomes have been reported as a result of the scheme implementation.

researchgate-14. Found, B., Dick, D. and Rogers, D. (2013). The structure of forensic handwriting and signature comparisons. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 1(2), pp.183-196.


The method of comparing questioned to known handwriting and signature formations is complex in that there are many steps where subjective judgements need to be made. With the introduction of computer aided examinations, more information should become available to the examiner on which to base subjective decisions. It is unlikely however that the majority of these subjective steps will be excluded. Decisions as to the consistency of a given questioned image to a body of standard images are based almost entirely on an individual’s ability to make reasoned choices in view of the limitations of the technique that they are performing. This article summarizes a method used to compare handwriting in the forensic environment and is primarily aimed at forensic practitioners who are new to document examination or related disciplines and to individuals with a legal background who require a basic understanding of the structure of forensic handwriting examination.

researchgate5. Caligiuri, M., Mohammed, L., Found, B. and Rogers, D. (2012). Nonadherence to the isochrony principle in forged signatures. Forensic Science International, 223(1-3), pp.228-232.


Highly programmed skilled movements are executed in such a way that their kinematic features adhere to certain rules referred to as minimization principles. One such principle is the isochrony principle, which states that the duration of voluntary movement remains approximately constant across a range of movement distances; that is, movement duration is independent of movement extent. The concept of isochrony suggests that some information stored in the motor program is constant, thus reducing the storage demands of the program. The aim of the present study was to examine whether forged signatures can be distinguished from genuine signatures on the basis of isochrony kinematics. Sixty writers were asked to write their own signatures and to forge model signatures representing three different writing styles: text-based, stylized, and mixed. All signatures were digitized to enable high precision dynamic analyses of stroke kinematics. Vertical stroke duration and absolute amplitude were measured for each pen stroke of the signatures using MovAlyzeR(®) software. Slope coefficients derived from simple regression models of the relationship between stroke duration and amplitude served as our measure of isochrony. The slope coefficient reflects the degree to which stroke duration increases in relation to stroke amplitude. Higher coefficients indicate greater increases in stroke duration for a given stroke amplitude and thus violate the isochrony principle. We hypothesized that the duration-amplitude coefficients for forged signatures would be significantly greater than for genuine signatures suggesting non-adherence to the isochrony principle. Results indicated that regardless of the style of the writer, genuine signatures were associated with low slope coefficients Pen strokes forming forged signatures had significantly greater duration-amplitude slope coefficients than genuine signatures. These findings suggest that when forging signatures, writers execute pen movements having steeper duration-amplitude relationships than for genuine signatures.

researchgate6. Found, B. and Edmond, G. (2012). Reporting on the comparison and interpretation of pattern evidence: recommendations for forensic specialists. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44(2), pp.193-196.


The structure of expert forensic reports varies widely in the pattern evidence sciences. Since many of the forensic disciplines dealing with pattern evidence have historically evolved outside of the mainstream academic sciences, report writing styles can bear little similarity to traditional scientific report writing norms. This paper outlines a proposal from representatives of both the academic sciences and the academic legal community and aims for a transparent approach to report writing in the pattern evidence disciplines. The adoption of this framework should encourage a reporting environment and form of report that would better allow a pattern evidence specialist’s opinion to be assessed when being reviewed by practitioners and others within the wider socio-legal community.

researchgate-17. Houck, M., Robertson, J., Found, B., Kobus, H., Lewis, S., Raymond, M., Reedy, P., Ross, A., Roux, C. and Vining, R. (2011). A Round Table Discussion on Forensic Science in Australia. Forensic Science Policy & Management: An International Journal, 2(1), pp.44-54.


This manuscript is an edited transcript of a round table discussion held during the Australian New Zealand Forensic Science Society International Symposium held in Sydney in 2010. The discussants covered a variety of topics, including the management of science, the handling of quality issues, and the report on forensic science from the U.S. National Academies of Science National Research Council. This discussion offers a frank account of the current state of Australian forensic service providers. These views are then considered in the context of recent events unfolding in the United Kingdom and in a broader international context. It poses the question, are there lessons to be learned from the Australian experience that would have relevance to other parts of the world?

researchgate-18. Mohammed, L., Found, B., Caligiuri, M., Rogers, D. (2011). The Dynamic Character of Disguise Behavior for Text-Based, Mixed, and Stylized Signatures. J Forensic Sci, January 2011, Vol. 56, No. S1 pp. S136-141).



The aims of this study were to determine if dynamic parameters (duration, size, velocity, jerk, and pen pressure) differed for signing style (text-based, stylized, and mixed) and if signing style influences handwriting dynamics equally across three signature conditions (genuine, disguised, and auto-simulation). Ninety writers provided 10 genuine signatures, five disguised signatures, and five auto-simulated signatures. All 1800 signatures were collected using a digitizing tablet resulting in a database of each signature’s dynamic characteristics. With genuine signatures, there were significant differences between styles for size, velocity, and pen pressure, and there were significant differences between genuine signatures and at least one of the un-natural signature conditions for all parameters. For velocity and size, these changes with condition were dependent on style. Changes with condition for the other parameters were similar for the three styles. This study shows that there are differences among natural signature styles and disguise behaviors that may be relevant in forensic signature examinations.

researchgate9. Bird, C., Found, B., Ballantyne, K. and Rogers, D. (2010). Forensic handwriting examiners’ opinions on the process of production of disguised and simulated signatures. Forensic Science International, 195(1-3), pp.103-107.


Large-scale blind testing of forensic handwriting examiners (FHEs) has shown that authorship opinions on disguised and simulated signatures attract higher misleading and inconclusive rates than genuine signatures do. To test whether this is due to the failure of FHEs to detect the indicators of disguise/simulation behaviours we examined their opinions regarding the ‘process of production’ (which in this case was a choice between written naturally or written using a disguise/simulation strategy) of the questioned disguised and simulated signatures in blinded skill testing trials. The relationship between their process opinions and authorship opinions is then assessed. It was found that the majority of the inconclusive authorship opinions for both disguised and simulated signatures had a correct process opinion (707 of 1241, 57.0% for disguised; 3838 of 4368, 87.9% for simulated), with only 7.3% (90 of 1241) of the disguised and 0.85% (37 of 4368) of the simulated signatures exhibiting incorrect process opinions. For the total misleading authorship opinions relating to disguised signatures, the majority of the process opinions were correct (167 of 241, 69.3%) indicating that a disguise/simulation process was detected, but misinterpreted as being by another writer. These results show the usefulness of FHEs offering a first stage simulation/disguise process opinion without going on to form an opinion on authorship, as the support for the proposition that a signature is something other than genuine may be, in itself, of strong evidential value.

researchgate-110. Bird, C., Found, B. and Rogers, D. (2010). Forensic Document Examiners’ Skill in Distinguishing Between Natural and Disguised Handwriting Behaviors. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 55(5), pp.1291-1295.


Disguised handwriting is problematic for forensic document examiners (FDEs) and attracts higher misleading and inconclusive rates on authorship opinions than does genuine writing (Found B, Rogers D, International Graphonomics Society, 2005). There are currently no published empirical data on FDEs’ expertise in distinguishing between natural and disguised writing behavior. This paper reports on the skill of FDEs for determining the writing process of 140 pairs of natural and disguised writings and compares their results with those of a control group of laypeople. A significant difference was found between the examiner and lay group. FDEs’ expertise is characterized by their conservatism, where FDEs express a higher proportion of inconclusive opinions (23.1% for FDEs compared to 8.4% for the control group). This leads to the FDEs expressing a smaller percentage of misleading responses when calling writings as either naturally written or disguised (4.3% for FDEs compared with 12.2% for the control group).

11. Found, B. The Forensic Examination of Handwritten Text and Signatures, Wiley Encyclopaedia of Forensic Science (2009) Allan Jamieson (Editor), Andre Moenssens (Co-Editor).

researchgate12. Dewhurst, T., Found, B. and Rogers, D. (2008). Are expert penmen better than lay people at producing simulations of a model signature?. Forensic Science International, 180(1), pp.50-53.


Although forensic signature examination is considered to be an identification science, it is a theoretical possibility that an individual may learn to forge another person’s signature that is free from indications of simulation behaviours. This proposition was tested in a signature blind trial that was administered to 42 forensic handwriting examiners (FHEs). Participants expressed opinions on the authorship of 100 questioned signatures. The questioned signatures comprised a mixture of genuine, disguised and simulated signatures. Calligraphers formed part of the population of individuals who provided simulated signatures for the trial. A total of 3100 opinions were expressed of which 1254 were correct, 224 misleading and 1622 were inconclusive. Of the opinions expressed regarding the simulated signatures, the misleading score for the calligraphers’ forgeries were approximately four times that of the lay persons’ forgeries. These results provide strong evidence in support of the proposition that calligraphers are more skilled at simulating signatures than are lay people and can produce forgeries that some FHEs have difficulty detecting.

researchgate-113. Dyer, A., Found, B. and Rogers, D. (2008). An Insight into Forensic Document Examiner Expertise for Discriminating Between Forged and Disguised Signatures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, p.???-???.


It has previously been shown that forensic document examiners (FDEs) have expertise in providing opinions about whether questioned signatures are genuine or simulated. This study extends the exploration of FDE expertise by evaluating the performance of eight FDEs and 12 control subjects at identifying signatures as either forgeries or the disguised writing of a specimen provider. Subject eye movements and response times were recorded with a Tobii 1750 eye tracker during the signature evaluations. Using a penalty scoring system, FDEs performed significantly better than control subjects (t = 2.465, p = 0.024), with one FDE able to correctly call 13 of the 16 test stimuli (and three inconclusive calls). An analysis of eye movement search patterns by the subjects indicated that a very similar search strategy was employed by both groups, suggesting that visual inspection of signatures is mediated by a bottom up search strategy. However, FDEs spent greater than 50% longer to make a decision than the control group. The findings are suggestive that for some stimuli FDEs can discriminate between forgeries and disguises, and that this ability is due to a careful inspection and consideration of multiple features within a signature.

researchgate-114. Found, B. and Rogers, D. (2008). The probative character of Forensic Handwriting Examiners’ identification and elimination opinions on questioned signatures. Forensic Science International, 178(1), pp.54-60.


This 5-year study investigated the character of Forensic Handwriting Examiners’ (FHEs) authorship opinions on questioned signatures through the medium of blind validation trials. Twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and eleven authorship opinions were expressed by FHEs on trial kits comprising randomized questioned genuine signatures (written by the specimen writer), disguised signatures (written by the specimen writer) and simulated signatures (not written by the specimen writer). Results showed that, as a group, FHEs were significantly more confident at identifying writers’ genuine signatures than identifying writers’ disguised signatures or eliminating specimen writers from having authored simulated signatures. It is proposed that the difference in FHE confidence arises from the difficulty they have in deciding which alternative authorship explanation accounts for perceived combinations of similar and dissimilar features between specimen and questioned signatures.

15. Mohammed, L., Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2008). Frequency of signatures styles in San Diego County. Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, 11 (1), 9-13.


Signatures may be classified into 3 basic structural types: text-based (each allograph can be read clearly), mixed (at least 2 allographs are legible), and stylized (1 or no allograph is legible). The relative frequency of these signature types in the San Diego (USA) population was determined by sampling 1,500 signatures from Juror Summons forms. Of interest to this study were the relationships between type of signature, gender, and ethnicity. This survey disclosed that females more commonly wrote text-based signatures than mixed or stylized types, whereas males more commonly wrote in a mixed or stylized form than in a text-based form. The difference between the genders with respect to the extent of signature stylisation was highly significant (Chi-square = 138.1, p < 0.0005). No remarkable differences were found between the frequencies of the 3 signature types in the Hispanic versus the non-Hispanic populations of signers. When the signature types within each of the ethnic groups were compared according to gender, no differences were found between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic males, and only a small (questionable) difference was found between the Hispanic and non-Hispanic female writers.

16. Dewhurst, T., Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2007). The relationship between quantitatively modelled signature complexity levels and forensic document examiners’ qualitative opinions on casework. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 18, 21-40.


Signature comparisons are a major component of casework routinely undertaken by forensic document examiners (FDEs). FDEs currently compare handwriting features using subjective visual comparison methods. However, new objective techniques are being developed and tested. Previous research on signature complexity reported the development of a statistical model to predict whether a questioned (or disputed) signature contained sufficient features to express a valid authorship opinion. The predictions of the statistical model were compared to the opinions of six qualified FDEs on a sample drawn from fifty-three real casework examinations. These cases provide support for the proposition that there was no disagreement between FDEs and the model for identification opinions relating to complex signatures. To further explore the small number of low complexity signatures found in the 53 casework samples, a survey of 566 signatures was conducted. Of the signatures sampled, only 10 (1.8%) were found to be categorised by the model as low complexity signatures. These results indicate support for objective classification as an appropriate approach to further the science of forensic handwriting examination.

researchgate-117. Dyer, A.G., Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2006). Visual attention and expertise for forensic signature analysis. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51 (6), 1397-1404.


Eye tracking was used to measure visual attention of nine forensic document examiners (FDEs) and 12 control subjects on a blind signature comparison trial. Subjects evaluated 32 questioned signatures (16 genuine, eight disguised, and eight forged) which were compared, on screen, with four known signatures of the specimen provider while their eye movements, response times, and opinions were recorded. FDEs’ opinions were significantly more accurate than controls, providing further evidence of FDE expertise. Both control and FDE subjects looked at signature features in a very similar way and the difference in the accuracy of their opinions can be accounted for by different cognitive processing of the visual information that they extract from the images. In a separate experiment the FDEs re-examined a reordered set of the same 32 questioned signatures. In this phase each signature was presented for only 100 msec to test if eye movements are relevant in forming opinions; performance significantly dropped, but not to chance levels indicating that the examination process comprises a combination of both global and local feature extraction strategies.

researchgate18. Found, B. & Rogers, D.K. (2005). Investigating forensic document examiners’ skill relating to opinions on photocopied signatures. Science & Justice, 45 (4), 199-206.


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 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 evidence that examiners can make accurate observations regarding the authorship of non-original handwriting.

researchgate19. Sita, J., Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2004). A model using quantitative data for forensic signature identification. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 16, 91-101.

researchgate20. Sita, J., Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2004). A quantitative analysis of the spatial properties of questioned signatures and the relationship to forensic document examiners’opinions. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 16, 77-89.

21. Black, D., Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2003). The frequency of the occurrence of handwriting performance features used to predict whether questioned signatures are simulated. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 15, 17-28.

22. Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2003). The initial profiling trial of a program to characterise forensic handwriting examiners’ skill. Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, 6, 72-81.


This paper reports the results of the first profiling trial of a program that was developed to provide information concerning the skill characteristics of document examiners in expressing authorship opinions on handwritten text and signatures. This information is provided to participants of the profiling trials in the form of a certificate that numerically describes the nature of their skill in terms of correct, error, and conservatism rates. The rationale for the program, given recent criticisms of opinion identification evidence of this type, and some elements of the testing program are described. The performance feedback package is overviewed which provides examiners with the opportunity for corrective action where required. In this trial, 20 government employed document examiners provided opinions on the process of production and authorship of 250 questioned signatures that were a mixture of genuine, disguised, simulated, and autosimulated signatures. Findings for the group included a very low error rate (0.04%) for authorship opinions, with a high correct rate for genuine signatures, and a high conservatism rate for simulated and auto-simulated signatures. Examiners correctly identified that signatures were simulated in 95% of instances.

researchgate23. Sita, J., Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2002). Forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise for signature comparison. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 47, 1117-1124.


This paper reports on the performance of forensic document examiners (FDEs) in a signature comparison task that was designed to address the issue of expertise. The opinions of FDEs regarding 150 genuine and simulated questioned signatures were compared with a control group of non-examiners’ opinions. On the question of expertise, results showed that FDEs were statistically better than the control group at accurately determining the genuineness or non-genuineness of questioned signatures. The FDE group made errors (by calling a genuine signature simulated or by calling a simulated signature genuine) in 3.4% of their opinions while 19.3% of the control group’s opinions were erroneous. The FDE group gave significantly more inconclusive opinions than the control group. Analysis of FDEs’ responses showed that more correct opinions were expressed regarding simulated signatures and more inconclusive opinions were made on genuine signatures. Further, when the complexity of a signature was taken into account, FDEs made more correct opinions on high complexity signatures than on signatures of lower complexity. There was a wide range of skill amongst FDEs and no significant relationship was found between the number of years FDEs had been practicing and their correct, inconclusive and error rates.

24. Found, B., Rogers, D., & Herkt, A. (2001). Comparison of document examiners’ opinions on original and photocopied signatures. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 14, 1-13.

25. Found, B., Rogers, D., & Herkt, A. (2001). The skill of a group of forensic document examiners in expressing handwriting and signature authorship and production process opinions. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 14, 15-30.

researchgate26. Found, B., Sita, J. & Rogers, D. (1999). The development of a program for characterising forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise: Signature examination pilot study. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 12, 69-80

27. Haines, K., Phillips, J.G., Rogers, D. & Found, B. (2001). The ability to distinguish handwriting samples on the basis of writers’ age and gender. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 14, 31-51.

28. Dick, D., Found, B. & Rogers, D. (2000). The forensic detection of deceptive behaviour using handwriting movements. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 13, 15- 24.

29. Found, B. & Rogers, D. (1999). Documentation of forensic handwriting comparison and identification method: A modular approach. Journal of Forensic Document Examination , 12, 1 – 68.

30. Found, B. Rogers, D., & Metz, H. (1999). The objective static analysis of spatial errors in simulations. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 12, 81- 99.

31. Found, B., Sita, J. & Rogers, D. (1999). Forensic handwriting examiners’ expertise: Signature examinations. Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial Conference of the International Graphonomics Society, 209-212.

32. Found, B. & Rogers, D. (1998). A consideration of the theoretical basis of forensic handwriting examination: The application of “Complexity Theory” to understanding the basis of handwriting identification. International Journal of Forensic Document Examiners, 4, 109 – 118.

33. Found, B., Rogers, D., Rowe, V. & Dick, D. (1998). Statistical modelling of experts’ perceptions of the ease of signature simulation. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 11, 75 – 102.

34. Found, B., Rogers, D. & Schmittat, R. (1998). ‘Matrix Analysis’: A technique to investigate the spatial properties of handwritten images. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 11, 54 – 74.

35. Found, B. Rogers, D. & Schmittat, R. (1997). Recovering dynamic information from static handwriting traces using angular differential software. Journal of Questioned Document Examination, 6, 17-38.

36. Found, B. & Rogers, D (1996). The forensic investigation of signature complexity. In M. Simner, G. Leedham & A. Thomassen (Eds.), Handwriting and Drawing Research: Basic and Applied issues, (pp. 483 – 492). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

37. Rogers, D. & Found, B. (1996). The objective measurement of spatial invariance in handwriting. In M. Simner, G. Leedham & A. Thomassen (Eds.), Handwriting and Drawing Research: Basic and Applied issues, (pp. 3 – 13). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

38. Found, B. & Rogers, D. (1995). Contemporary issues in forensic handwriting examination. A discussion of key issues in the wake of the Starzecpyzel decision. Journal of Forensic Document Examination, 8, 1-31.

researchgate-139. Found, B., Dick, D. & Rogers, D.K. (1994). The structure of forensic handwriting and signature comparisons. Forensic Linguistics: International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 1, 183 – 196.


The method of comparing questioned to known handwriting and signature formations is complex in that there are many steps where subjective judgements need to be made. With the introduction of computer aided examinations, more information should become available to the examiner on which to base subjective decisions. It is unlikely however that the majority of these subjective steps will be excluded. Decisions as to the consistency of a given questioned image to a body of standard images are based almost entirely on an individual’s ability to make reasoned choices in view of the limitations of the technique that they are performing. This article summarizes a method used to compare handwriting in the forensic environment and is primarily aimed at forensic practitioners who are new to document examination or related disciplines and to individuals with a legal background who require a basic understanding of the structure of forensic handwriting examination.

researchgate40. Found, B., Rogers, D. & Schmittat, R. (1994). A computer program designed to compare the spatial elements of handwriting. Forensic Science International, 68, 195- 203


The comparison of questioned and standard line traces in forensic handwriting examination has to date been based almost entirely on subjective techniques. Handwriting examiners have not been equipped with a basic user-friendly technique to perform measurements on what are non-linear and variable behavioural artifacts. This paper describes a technique developed through research into human motor control which has been modified to be used by forensic handwriting examiners. The program provides a series of measurement tools. These tools can be applied to scanned images for the purpose of determining the spatial consistency of a disputed sample with a body of known writings. It is thought that the immediate application for this technique in the forensic casework environment is for the comparison of disputed signatures. In addition, the program can be used for any forensic research project requiring objective spatial data. If the field of forensic handwriting examination is to be considered a scientific endeavour, then the move toward the inclusion of objective measurement as part of the overall comparison methodology must be made.

Deja una respuesta

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *