Division of Criminal Justice Services

NYCLAC Report Standardization Project

Return to Table of Contents

< previous section | next section >

 

Questioned Documents

 

Open All Categories | Close All Categories

Standardized Report Components

  1. Unique case identifier on each page of report (such as lab number)
  2. Title of the report (such as “report of laboratory analysis”)
  3. Identification of the laboratory
  4. Submitting Agency Info or at a minimum submitting agency
  5. List or explanation of items examined
  6. General indication of methodology utilized
  7. Results/conclusions
  8. Date report issued
  9. Signature and title of examiner (or electronic equivalent)
  10. Pagination of the report (example page 1 of 2 etc.)
  11. Statement regarding the report does not constitute the entire case file or equivalent
  12. Statement that definitions of terms used in the report can be located at the DCJS website and if applicable on the laboratory website or attached to report

Additional Discipline Specific Report Components:

  1. Each submitted item will have:
    1. A unique identifier associated with it
    2. The date it was received

Standardized Language/Statements

ESDA/Visual

Positive

  • (The evidence/sample name) was examined utilizing (describe method –
    visually/ESDA) for the possible presence of indented impressions.
    (Multiple) impressions were found (see page __ for interpretation).
  • (A copy of the ESDA image will be included in the report.)

Negative (Positive of No Value)

1.b.1 No impressions of investigative value were found.

1.b.2 (The evidence/sample name) was examined utilizing (describe method – visually/ESDA) for the possible presence of indented impressions; no impressions of investigative value were found.

1.b.3 (The evidence/sample name) was examined utilizing oblique/side lighting and ESDA (Electrostatic Detection Apparatus) for the possible presence of indented impressions. 

Aside from the laboratory number, lab item number, envelope outline, paper outline, or extraneous markings – no impressions were found.

Inconclusive
N/A

Print Process

Positive
Visual and microscopic examination revealed the presence of:

  • Non-impact print process (define further e.g., ink jet/dry toner/off set/etc.)
  • Impact printing

Negative
N/A

Inconclusive
The print process cannot be determined. (A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations)

Physical Match

Positive
(The evidence/sample name) were at one time joined together

Negative
(The evidence/sample name) were not at one time joined together.

Inconclusive
The evidence submitted does not allow a definitive determination as to if the
objects were at one time joined together. (A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations)

Paper

Positive
Could have originated from a common source or another source with similar characteristics to those examined.

  • Another analytical technique may reveal differences.

Negative
Could not have originated from the same source based upon observed differences

Inconclusive

  • The presence of similar and different characteristics precludes a determination of common origin.
  • The quality of the known or questioned samples precludes any determination.

Ink

Positive
(Insert methodology used) showed no differences in the inks examined. The inks could have originated from a common source or another source with similar characteristics.

  • Another analytical technique may reveal differences.

Negative
Could not have originated from the same source based upon observed differences. (Insert Methodology used).

Inconclusive

  • The presence of similar and different characteristics precludes a determination of common origin.
  • The quality of the known or questioned samples precludes any determination.

Writing Instrument

Positive
Visual and microscopic examination revealed that the instrument used to create the observed writing (was/is consistent with, or has characteristic of) a ______.

Negative
N/A

Inconclusive

  • No definitive determination could be made regarding the writing instrument used to create the observed writing (Qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations. i.e. “Due to the lack of distinguishable characteristics, no definitive…..”)
  • The quality of the known or questioned samples precludes any determination.

Alterations / Obliterations

Positive
(Insert method used) revealed that the document was altered in the following manner: - (insert how document was altered).

Negative
No differences were observed by (insert method) examination.

Inconclusive
A definitive determination could not be reached; e.g., the same writing implement was used to alter/obliterate the evidence. (A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations).

Typewritten Material - Class Characteristic

Positive

  • Sufficient class characteristics are present to determine that the documents were produced by the same class of machine/machine system or any other machine/machine system that exhibits the same class features/characteristics.
  • Machine system consists of: (give description of machine system elements).

Negative
Sufficient differences exist to exclude the possibility of common class of machine.

Inconclusive

  • The text provided for comparison is too limited to allow for a definitive determination.
  • The presence of similar and different characteristics precludes a determination of common origin.
  • The quality of the known or questioned samples precludes any determination.

Typewritten Material – Individual Characteristic

Positive

  • Sufficient individual characteristics are present to determine that the documents were produced by the same machine/machine system.
  • Machine system consists of: (give description of machine system elements).

Negative
Sufficient differences exist to exclude the possibility of common source.

Inconclusive

  • The text provided for comparison is too limited to allow for a definitive determination.
  • The presence of similar and different characteristics precludes a determination of common origin.
  • The quality of the known or questioned samples precludes any determination.

Machine Copies – Class Characteristic

Positive
Sufficient class characteristics are present to determine that the documents were produced by the same class of machine, or any other class of machines producing the same class of characteristics.

Negative
Sufficient dissimilar class characteristics exist to exclude the possibility of common source.

Inconclusive

  • The exhibit provided for determination is too limited to allow a definitive determination.
  • The presence of similar and different characteristics precludes a determination of common origin.
  • The quality of the known or questioned samples precludes any determination.
  • Overlapping characteristics are present which may interfere with the examination.

Machine Copies – Individual Characteristic

Positive
Sufficient individual characteristics are present to determine that the documents were produced by the same machine.

Negative
Sufficient dissimilar individual characteristics exist to exclude the possibility of common source.

Inconclusive

  • The exhibit provided for comparison is too limited to allow for a definitive determination.
  • The presence of similar and different characteristics precludes a determination of common origin.
  • The quality of the known or questioned samples precludes any determination.

Robbery Notes / Criminal Letters

Positive
(Lab item_) was searched through the current [Agency] (robbery note/criminal letter) database. As of (insert date) the following cases including the current submission may be associated to a common source. (Insert chart with case information.) (Insert definition/qualifier for “association.”)

Negative
(Lab item_) was searched through the current [Agency] (robbery note/criminal letter) database. As of (insert date) this evidence cannot be associated with any previously submitted case.

Inconclusive
N/A

Other: Handwriting / Signature

At most, 9 levels of opinions/conclusions will be used for handwriting analysis.

Identification
(The evidence/sample) was written by the author (insert name) of the known writing samples.

Highly Probable
It is highly probable that (the evidence/sample) was written by the author (insert name) of the known writing samples. A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations.

Probable
(The evidence/sample) was probably/probably may have been written by the author (insert name) of the known writing samples. A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations.

Indications
There are indications that (the evidence/sample) was written/may have been written by the author (insert name) of the known writing samples. A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations.

No Conclusion
No definitive conclusion can be made. A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations.

Indications Did Not
There are indications that (the evidence/sample) was not written/may not have been written by the author (insert name) of the known writing samples. A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations.

Probably Did Not
(The evidence/sample) was probably not/probably may not have been written by the author (insert name) of the known writing samples. A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations.

High Probability Did Not
There is a high probability that (the evidence/sample) were not written by the author (insert name) of the known writing samples. A qualifier(s) will be inserted as to the limitations.

Elimination
(The evidence/sample) was not written by the author (insert name) of the known writing samples.

Counterfeit Documents

Positive
(Methodology used) revealed that the document (Item identifier, ex. “Q1”) was/is genuine.  The laboratory will list the reasons why.

Negative
(Methodology used) revealed that the document (Item identifier, ex. “Q1”) was/is non-genuine.  The laboratory will list the reasons why.

Inconclusive
A definitive determination could not be reached as to the genuineness.  The laboratory will list the reasons why.


 

Standardized Terms & Definition

Alteration
A modification made to a document by physical, chemical or mechanical means including, but not limited to, obliterations, additions, overwritings, or erasures.

Association
“Association to a common source” – connection between two or more questioned documents which exhibit similarities in verbiage, letter formation, arrangement, alignment or other individual feature.

Character
Any language symbol i.e. letter, numeral, punctuation mark or other sign

Characteristic
A feature, quality, attribute or property of writing

Class Characteristic
One that is common to a group.

Common Origin (Common Source)
Belonging to or shared by two or more people, groups or object(s).

Counterfeit Documents
Item made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive (forged).

ESDA (Electrostatic Detection Apparatus)
The acronym for the instrument used to visualize paper fiber disturbances (for example, indentations, erasures, typewritten material/lift off).

Handwriting / Signature
Handwriting – handwriting executed by one’s hand as distinguished from printscript, printing or typing since the letters and words are for the most part joined together. Signature – inscribed name of a writer, or a symbol representing his name whether written or one authorized to affix his signature.

Handwriting Opinions

  • Was written – This is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using the word “fact,” the examiner is certain, based on evidence contained in the handwriting, that the writer of the known material actually wrote the writing in question.
  • Strong probability (highly probable, very probably) – 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 / Probably may have – 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 / Indications may have (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, totally 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 may not have (evidence to suggest) – A body of writing has few features which are of significance for handwriting comparison purposes, but those features are dissimilar with another body of writing.
  • Probably did not / Probably may not have – The evidence points rather strongly against the questioned and known writings having been written by the same individual, however, the evidence is not quite up to the “virtually certain” range.
  • Strong probability did not – The evidence is very persuasive, yet some critical feature or quality is missing so that an elimination is not in order; however, the examiner is virtually certain that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual.
  • Was not written – This is the highest degree of confidence expressed by document examiners in handwriting comparisons. The examiner has no reservations whatever, and although prohibited from using the word “fact,” the examiner is certain, based on evidence contained in the handwriting, that the questioned and known writings were not written by the same individual.

Indentations / Indented Impressions
Latent or visible impressions (a mark left/caused by pressure) in paper or other media.

Individual Characteristic
One that is highly personal or peculiar and is unlikely to occur in other instances.

Impact Printing Process
Type of printing process produced by a device that strikes the ribbon and paper to form a character.

Ink
A colored fluid or viscous marking material used for writing or printing.

Known
Exemplar, of established origin associated with the matter under investigation.

Machine Copy (Photocopy)
A reproduction of a document made on paper by any office or commercial system.

Non-Impact Printing Process
Type of printing process produced by a device that does not strike a ribbon to form a character.

Paper
The material that is used in the form of sheets for writing or printing purposes.

Physical Match
Optical and/or physical realignment of fractured evidence.

Questioned
Associated with the matter under investigation about which there is some question, including, but not limited to, whether the questioned and known items have a common origin.

Significant Difference
Fundamental difference, an individualizing characteristic that is structurally divergent between handwritten items, that is outside the range of variation of the writer, and that cannot be reasonably explained.

Significant Similarity
An individualizing characteristic in common between two or more handwritten items.

Robbery Notes / Criminal Letters
See Association.

Typewriter
A machine for writing in characters similar to those produced by printer's type by means of keyboard-operated types striking a ribbon to transfer ink or carbon impressions onto the paper.

Visual
Of or relating to seeing or sight; seen or able to be seen by the eye; attained by sight

VSC (Video Spectral Comparator)
The acronym for the instrument used in viewing documents using a high resolution camera, range of viewing filers, multiple illumination sources to detect irregularities on questioned documents.

Writing Instrument / Writing Implement
An instrument used to apply ink, graphite, paint or another substance to paper or some surface.