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

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.