Evaluation of identification sings of handwriting for different types of forensic report


Keywords: evaluation of signs; forensic report types; forensic expert practice; categorical positive and negative conclusions; probabilistic positive and negative conclusions.

Abstract

When formulating positive and negative conclusions, probabilistic positive and negative conclusions, as well as a conclusion on the impossibility to solve the issue, different options for evaluating features and, as a result, alternative interpretation for the investigation summary section of the forensic report are possible.

To strengthen existing approaches, systematize theoretical knowledge, study and analyze forensic expert practice in providing a scientifically sound, objective, full forensic report for all types of expert conclusions, peculiarities of the methodology for identification and evaluation of the set of features are outlined.

Since the probative value of the forensic report depends on its type and scientific substantiation, this article discusses in detail and comprehensively considers reasons for justification of each of conclusion types.

Existing methods of signs analysis are investigated and, taking into account current forensic expert practice, presentation of a scientifically sound evaluation of signs for each expert situation is suggested.

Capacities of the forensic expert are considered depending on studied and comparative material, his experience and professional training. Reasons leading to erroneous expert conclusions on the example of more than 10 investigation summary sections of different forms of forensic report are analyzed. Ways to prevent such errors are proposed.

The algorithm of actions for identification and careful study of both coinciding signs and discrepancies is developed. Also, the terms for their occurrence and interdependence, the degree of influence of diagnostic signs on identification ones are provided. The suggested in the article options for solving expert tasks can be used in forensic expert practice to optimize expert research.

References

Arotsker, L. E., Bogachkina, G. R., Dobroslavskaia, E. E., Kuzina, V. M. ta іn. (1971). Sudebnopocherkovedcheskaia ehkspertiza [Forensic handwriting analysis]: posob. dlia ehkspert.pocherkoved. i sledstv. rabotn. ; redkol.: E. D. Dobrovolskaia, A. I. Mantsvetova, V. F. Orlova. Moskva [in Russian].
Boitsova, O. V., Bondar, M. Ye., Hrynenko, L. H., Dovzhenko, O. V. ta in. (2004). Udoskonalena systema zahalnykh ta okremykh oznak pocherku [Advanced system of common and individual signs of handwriting]: metod. posib. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Bychkova, S. S. (2003). Ekspertyza v tsyvilnomu protsesi Ukrainy [Forensic examination in the civil process of Ukraine]: dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Ekspertyzy u sudovii praktytsi [Forensic examinations in forensic practice]: nauk.-prakt. posib. (2010) ; za zah. red. V. H. Honcharenka. 2-he vyd., pererob. i dopov. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Honcharenko, V. H., Berher, V. Ye., Bulyha, L. P. ta in. (1993). Ekspertyzy v sudovii praktytsi [Forensic examinations in forensic practice]: navch. posib. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Karapetian, M. Zh. (2017). Osnovnye metodicheskie polozheniia i osobennosti proizvodstva povtornykh pocherkovedcheskikh ehkspertiz v Respublike Armeniia [Main methodological provisions and peculiarities of performing handwriting re-examinations in the Republic of Armenia]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky. Vyp. 17. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/ UJRN/Tpsek_2017_17_30 [in Russian].
Klimenko, N. I., Tsipeniuk, S. A. (2006). Naznachenie i provedenie ehkspertizy v grazhdanskom protsesse [Appointment and conduct of forensic examination in civil procedure]. Ehkspertnoe obespechenie pravosudiia: problemy teorii i praktiki : mat-ly mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf. (AR Krym, 07—08.09.2006). Simferopol [in Russian]. Klymenko, N. I., Koloniuk, V. P. (2009). Struktura i dokazove znachennia vysnovku eksperta yak dokumenta, shcho vidobrazhuie yoho doslidzhennia [The structure and probative value of the forensic report as a document presenting its research]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky. Vyp. 9 [in Ukrainian].
Melenevska, Z. S., Svoboda, Ye. Yu. (2012). Albom zahalnykh i okremykh oznak pidpysu [Album of common and individual signs of signature]: navch.-metod. posib. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Melenevska, Z. S., Svoboda, Ye. Yu., Antoniuk, P. Ye. (2016). Prychyny ekspertnykh pomylok pid chas vyrishennia identyfikatsiinykh zavdan u mezhakh sudovo-pocherkoznavchykh doslidzhen [Causes of expert mistakes when solving identification tasks within the framework of forensic handwriting analyses]. Kryminalistychnyi visnyk. Vyp. 1 (25) [in Ukrainian].
Nadgornyi, G. M. (1970). Nekotorye logicheskie i dokazatelstvennye aspekty vyvodov ehksperta [Certain logical and probative aspects of the expert conclusions]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaia ehkspertiza : respubl. mezhvedom. sb. nauch. i nauch.-metod. rab. Vyp. 7 [in Russian].
Osypenko, I. P., Prorochenko, V. V. (2020). Vysnovok eksperta v dosudovomu rozsliduvanni [Expert conclusion in pre-trial investigation]. Yurydychnyi naukovyi elektronnyi zhurnal. № 2. DOI: 10.32782/2524-0374/2020-2/104 [in Ukrainian].
Panko, N. A. (2009). Dokazove znachennia vysnovku eksperta [Probative value of the forensic report]. Forum prava. № 1 [in Ukrainian].
Pinkhasov, B. I., Arkhangelskaia, E. G. (1983). Veroiatnye zakliucheniia ehksperta-kriminalista i nekotorye voprosy ikh otsenki i ispolzovaniia [Probabilistic conclusions of the expertcriminalist and certain issues of their evaluation and use]. Voprosy sudebnoi ehkspertizy ; redkol.: B. I. Pinkhasov i dr. Tashkent [in Russian].
Rogozin, A. P. (1975). O poniatii priznaka pocherka i ego kachestvennykh i kolichestvennykh kharakteristikakh [On the concept of handwriting sign and its qualitative and quantitative characteristics]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaia ehkspertiza. Vyp. 11 [in Russian].
Shcherbakovskii, M. G. (2005). Sudebnye ehkspertizy: naznachenie, proizvodstvo, ispolzovanie [Forensic examinations: appointment, сonduct, use]: ucheb.-prakt. posob. Kharkov [in Russian].
Shliakhov, A. R. (1972). Struktura ehkspertnogo issledovaniia i gnoseologicheskaia kharakteristika vyvodov ehksperta-kriminalista [Structure of forensic examination and epistemological characteristics of expert-criminalist conclusions]. Trudy VNIISEH. Vyp. 4 [in Russian].
Trigulova, A. Kh. (1983). Otsenka rezultatov issledovaniia i formulirovanie vyvodov kak stadiia ehkspertizy [Evaluation of research results and formulation of conclusions as a stage of forensic examination]. Teoreticheskie problemy i praktika ehkspertnykh issledovanii. Tashkent [in Russian].
Vinberg, A. I. (1956). Kriminalisticheskaia ehkspertiza v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse [Forensic examination in the Soviet criminal procedure]. Moskva [in Russian].
Yurchyshyn, V. D. (2013). Analiz ta klasyfikatsiia vysnovkiv eksperta u kryminalnomu provadzhenni: teoretychnyi ta praktychnyi aspekty [Analysis and classification of forensic reports in criminal proceedings: theoretical and practical aspects]. Prykarpatskyi yurydychnyi visnyk. Vyp. 1 (3). URL: http://www.pjv.nuoua. od.ua/v1_2013/42.pdf [in Ukrainian].

Abstract views: 19
PDF Downloads: 9 PDF Downloads: 5
Published
2021-12-30
How to Cite
Ivanović, A., Naumenko, S., & Briukhan, S. (2021). Evaluation of identification sings of handwriting for different types of forensic report. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 25(3), 99-113. https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.3.2021.07