one disputed signature three different opinions a … · one disputed signature three different...

All Rights Reserved 2005 Health Sciences Authority1

One Disputed Signature

Three Different Opinions

A Case Study

Presented by:Yap Bei Sing

Document Examination LaboratoryCentre for Forensic ScienceHealth Sciences Authority

One Disputed Signature

Three Different Opinions

A Case Study

Presented by:Yap Bei Sing

Document Examination LaboratoryCentre for Forensic ScienceHealth Sciences Authority


The Team Members

. Lee Gek Kwee

. Yap Bei Sing

. Yang Chiew Yung

. Lee Lee Tiang

. Tan Sock Kim

. Tan Koon Puay

The Team Members

. Lee Gek Kwee

. Yap Bei Sing

. Yang Chiew Yung

. Lee Lee Tiang

. Tan Sock Kim

. Tan Koon Puay


Background

This was a case involving one disputed signature appended on a document ‘Letter of Undertaking’.

The housing agent, the accused, claimed before the Referee at the Small Claims Tribunal that he had witnessed the complainant, an apartment owner, sign the document in front of him.

The complainant denied the allegation and stressed that the signature on it was not hers. She then lodged a police report to inform that her signature had been forged.

Background

This was a case involving one disputed signature appended on a document ‘Letter of Undertaking’.

The housing agent, the accused, claimed before the Referee at the Small Claims Tribunal that he had witnessed the complainant, an apartment owner, sign the document in front of him.

The complainant denied the allegation and stressed that the signature on it was not hers. She then lodged a police report to inform that her signature had been forged.


The original of the ‘Letter of Undertaking’ was initially available at the Small Claim Tribunal and it was later said to have been misplaced.

The photocopy of the ‘Letter of Undertaking’ and both the normal and request specimen signatures of the complainant were sent to Document Examination Laboratory, CFS, HSA for signature verification and assessment.

After the examination, A report was furnished by a HSA document examiner and he testified in the Court that there was no evidence to indicate that the complainant made the questioned signature.

The original of the ‘Letter of Undertaking’ was initially available at the Small Claim Tribunal and it was later said to have been misplaced.

The photocopy of the ‘Letter of Undertaking’ and both the normal and request specimen signatures of the complainant were sent to Document Examination Laboratory, CFS, HSA for signature verification and assessment.

After the examination, A report was furnished by a HSA document examiner and he testified in the Court that there was no evidence to indicate that the complainant made the questioned signature.


Q


Two private document examiners were engaged from foreign countries by the accused defense counsel. They came out with lengthy reports of different conclusions.

The first expert testified in the Court and concluded that the questioned signature and the undisputed specimen signatures were written by the complainant.

The second expert testified in the Court and opined that the questioned signature was most probably signed by the complainant.

Two private document examiners were engaged from foreign countries by the accused defense counsel. They came out with lengthy reports of different conclusions.

The first expert testified in the Court and concluded that the questioned signature and the undisputed specimen signatures were written by the complainant.

The second expert testified in the Court and opined that the questioned signature was most probably signed by the complainant.


The points of contention among the three document examiners were that whether the identifiable features in the formation, proportion and relative positioning of strokes between the questioned signature and the 117 undisputed signatures of the complainant, made up of 17 normal specimens and 100 request specimens were fundamentally different or mainly due to natural or accidental variations of the complainant.

The points of contention among the three document examiners were that whether the identifiable features in the formation, proportion and relative positioning of strokes between the questioned signature and the 117 undisputed signatures of the complainant, made up of 17 normal specimens and 100 request specimens were fundamentally different or mainly due to natural or accidental variations of the complainant.


N13 R34


Q


Findings & Explanation

Eight Identifiable features:

1. High intersection of the feature ‘2’ on the first vertical stroke;

2. Different direction of the starting point of the first vertical stroke;

3. A retouch stroke noted at the lower portion of the first vertical stroke;

Findings & Explanation

Eight Identifiable features:

1. High intersection of the feature ‘2’ on the first vertical stroke;

2. Different direction of the starting point of the first vertical stroke;

3. A retouch stroke noted at the lower portion of the first vertical stroke;


4. An unusual turning at the end of the first vertical stroke;

5. Comparatively longer up-turning stroke after the first vertical stroke;

6. Narrower gap of the ‘u’ shape feature;

7. Different formation and slant of the upward loop;

8. Heavier pen pressure of the terminal stroke.

4. An unusual turning at the end of the first vertical stroke;

5. Comparatively longer up-turning stroke after the first vertical stroke;

6. Narrower gap of the ‘u’ shape feature;

7. Different formation and slant of the upward loop;

8. Heavier pen pressure of the terminal stroke.


High intersection of the feature ‘2’ on the first vertical strokeHigh intersection of the feature ‘2’ on the first vertical stroke

N15 R2

Q


N6 N7 N16

Q


N15

Different direction of the starting point of the first vertical strokeDifferent direction of the starting point of the first vertical stroke

R43 R62 R64

Q


Choppingtheory

Choppingtheory

Q

Q


A retouched stroke noted at the lower portion of the first vertical strokeA retouched stroke noted at the lower portion of the first vertical stroke

Q

N11 N13


An unnatural turning at the end of the first vertical strokeAn unnatural turning at the end of the first vertical stroke

Q

N14 R80 R59


Comparatively longer up-turning stroke after the first vertical strokeComparatively longer up-turning stroke after the first vertical stroke

N16 R11

Q


N10 N9 R82

Q

N10 N9 R82

Narrower gap of the ‘u’ shape featureNarrower gap of the ‘u’ shape feature


Q

N3 N14 R99

Q

Different formation and slant of the upward loopDifferent formation and slant of the upward loop


N12 N2 R96

Q

Heavier pen pressure of the terminal strokeHeavier pen pressure of the terminal stroke


DISCUSSION & OPINIONS

Forgery of a signature can be readily detected from the inherent defects that incorporated in the signature in respect of the fluency, formation, slant, spacing and relative positioning of strokes. In this case, the proportion of the adjacent strokes or letters also plays an important role in the identification or elimination as it becomes more or less fixed once the writer has become habitual in his signature execution.


The document examiner of HSA, Singapore pointed out that six out of the eight different features noted in the Q, namely, 1,2,4,5,6 & 7 were not falling within the range of the natural variations noted in all the 117 specimen signatures of the complainant. He also ruled out the possibility that the complainant could have accidentally made these fundamental differences in a single execution when signing the Letter of Undertaking.


The first expert told the Court that the Q was smooth, rhythmic and rapidly executed with some grace and poise. He noted a number of significant similarities in writing habits and the number was greater than that which would be expected to occur by pure coincidence on comparing with the specimen signatures. He also found no evidence of disparities such as unnatural pen-lift or uncertainty of writing movement. He tried hard to convince the Judge that most of the features of the Q were within the extremes of natural variations noted in all the specimen signatures.


The second expert opined that the Q seemed to have been written with a normal speed as there were tapering start and tapering end and no evidence of hesitation or tremor in the line structure just as were noted in the specimen signatures. He concluded that the Q was most probably of common authorship to the specimen signatures as it was within the wide range of natural variations observed in the specimen signatures.


Conclusion

The testimony of the document examiner, HSA Singapore was accepted by the Court.

The accused was found to be guilty and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment.


THANK YOUTHANK YOU

one disputed signature three different opinions a … · one disputed signature three different...

Documents